Economy: Balance of Payments

Lord Sheldon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their estimate for the balance of payments in the current financial year.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government will publish updated forecasts for the UK economy, including for the current account of the balance of payments, in the autumn Pre-Budget Report as normal.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. The latest figures show that so far in this financial year the Government's borrowing is £37 billion. Will my noble friend confirm that, in quoting John Maynard Keynes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that Governments should spend their way out of a recession and that he is set to pour some billions of pounds into major public works to fend off the economic downturn? Some public works will take some time to organise. Will my noble friend indicate the public works that are being considered, how much will be spent and when they will be put in place?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that question appears to be a little above my pay grade. I am briefed on balance of payments issues, which is the subject of my noble friend's original Question. As regards investment in the economy and necessary public help in circumstances where we all recognise there is a difficult year ahead for the British economy, those announcements will be made in the very near future. My noble friend is absolutely right; they are not the kind of investments that are likely to produce immediate and early results. However, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has indicated that this investment is necessary in circumstances where otherwise demand in the economy could drop significantly.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, given that we are experiencing the worst financial crisis in my lifetime, and I think even in most of your Lordships' lifetimes, is it not extraordinary that we have not had an opportunity to debate what is going on? Our banks are being nationalised and the debt is growing out of control. Last Tuesday the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked when we would have an opportunity to debate this. So far, nothing has happened. Surely if Parliament means anything at all, it should be discussing the issues which are on everyone's mind throughout the country.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Lord will recognise, that point was made at least as forcefully last week from my own Benches. I scurried off to the usual channels to see what the prospects for such a debate were against a background where, as the whole House will appreciate, this period is customarily dominated by government business related to Bills which are still outstanding. That will be the broad pattern over the next month. However, I am hopeful that discussions on the need for an economics debate will reach a fruitful conclusion. In the mean time, the noble Lord will take every opportunity he can to raise these issues, as he has done today.

Lord Newby: My Lords, the Government are talking about reprioritising expenditure in terms of capital projects. Could they at the same time give greater priority to skills training, from apprenticeships to high-level skills, so that British firms can compete more effectively in the global export markets? Do they accept that that could have a quicker effect than directing expenditure at capital projects, which might take a long time to produce results?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a constructive proposal, although there are certain aspects of the skills agenda that take rather a long time to come to fruition. We are encouraged that international judgments on the British labour market indicate how competitive we are and how flexible our labour market is with regard to its ability to adjust to demands made on it. I agree with the noble Lord that one of the issues that needs constant attention is the uprating of the skills and abilities of our people to meet the opportunities that are presented to them.

Lord Peston: My Lords, having spent my life flogging dead horses, I will not say again that we ought to have a debate; except that we ought to. Will my noble friend allow me, especially as he has a whole file full of answers, to return to the balance of payments, which is the subject of the Question? Is it not interesting that the balance of payments has been in deficit for a considerable period, and yet that has not led to a financial crisis? That suggests two things to me. It partly reflects what I gather is known in the technical literature as the Lawson doctrine, named after the previous Chancellor, that if the deficit is the outcome of rational decisions in competitive markets by the private sector, ipso facto it cannot possibly be a problem. It is a perfectly rational event to occur. Apart from that, is there not an indication that our ability to borrow to cover that deficit is strong evidence of the strength of the economy and the faith that the rest of the world has in us?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the fact that, in the teeth of the difficulties that obviously obtain with regard to the economy, we are better placed than almost any other advanced economy to cope with the vicissitudes that we undoubtedly will face over the next year. As for my noble friend suggesting that his plea last week represented the flogging of a dead horse; far from it. The horse is alive and frisky. The question is whether it gets to the winning post.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the current account has been in deficit for a very long time, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out. More recently, that has been matched by equally negative statistics. For example, we have rising unemployment, falling employment, rising inflation and rising public sector debt. Can the Minister name one statistic that shows that there is something good in our economy? All the other information shows that we have a very stressed economy.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is the reduction in interest rates and, if the noble Baroness wants to shift from the here and now to the longer term, the prediction that by the end of next year the inflation rate will have dropped to the target set by the Bank of England and the Government. Those are two dimensions of the economy for which the noble Baroness might show some approval.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, has my noble friend considered whether a further substantial cut in interest rates might be a timely boost to domestic demand? The fiscal boost will take a considerable time to provide its benefits and, at the same time, might cause the pound to weaken against the euro, the currency of our major trading partners, stimulating demand for our exports and being helpful in that regard. Would it not also assist the balance of payments?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, part of that process has been in existence over recent months, as my noble friend will recognise, but, as he knows only too well, the setting of interest rates is the responsibility of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, which takes a rounded view of the needs of the economy and inflation projections. Experts expect inflation rates in the British economy to decline with considerable rapidity in the coming year.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are in the ninth minute, I am afraid.

Iran: Uranium Enrichment

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their assessment of recent diplomatic efforts regarding Iran's uranium enrichment programme.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the UK and our partners in the E3+3 are determined to achieve a diplomatic solution to the challenge of Iran's nuclear programme. The unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1835 last month showed that international resolve remains firm. It calls for Iran to comply fully and without delay with the requirements of previous resolutions and suspend its nuclear programme. The resolution also expresses clear support for the IAEA in its efforts to establish the true nature of Iran's programme.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response. Does he agree that we should have deep alarm at Iran's ongoing enrichment of uranium, against the will of the international community, especially as there have been further increases in that enrichment capacity and a continuing failure by Iran to provide acceptable reasons for that activity? Does he agree that current sanctions are clearly not working, because Iran has been able to trade with other countries in the region? Does he recognise that sanctions are not having the required effect and must be extended to enforce Iran's co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct to express alarm; I share it with him. The IAEA's most recent report in September reported a continuing pattern of non-co-operation with, and non-disclosure of the enrichment programme to, that agency. That left us to speculate on exactly how far advanced that programme is, but the core point is correct—we do not have the co-operation we would expect. However, sanctions are taking their toll on Iran. They are isolating the country, which ran last week to the Security Council and failed dismally, they have restricted Iran's ability to source nuclear parts and financial restrictions are having a very severe effect on its economy.

Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Minister for listing the activities in his Answer. Is it the Government's view that progress is being made through all of those activities, or is the deadlock just as it was many months ago?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We have not forced compliance with the IAEA programme or the end to enrichment. However, discussions are continuing and we hope that Iran will engage. It is suffering from greater and greater isolation and, through the E3+3 dual-track approach, we have made it clear that we will take further steps, if necessary.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords—

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords—

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is time for everyone. Shall we hear from this side and then the noble Baroness?

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, could my noble friend say a little more about the extreme success that financial sanctions could have if they were pressed upon this extraordinary Iranian regime? Will he give a little more detail on what further financial sanctions could be imposed?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, existing financial sanctions have limited Iran's abilities to move funds abroad and have made its proliferation-sensitive activities a lot more difficult. They have also contributed to a political debate within Iran about the appropriateness of the Government's course of action. A few months ago, the EU sanctioned and stopped the activities of Bank Melli; other financial institutions of Iran are suffering accordingly. Yes, I think there may still be occasion to strengthen that stranglehold further.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, up to now, Iran has not been in breach of the nuclear proliferation treaty? Does he also agree that a very substantial regime of inspection has been mounted by the IAEA—probably the most intense of any country in the world? In the light of the remarkable approach, last Tuesday, by Mr Larijani, the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis, and the former chief nuclear negotiator for Iran, would Her Majesty's Government now consider the proposals he put forward for high-level, diplomatic discussions, including with the United States, at least one of whose presidential candidates has indicated that that would be an important way forward without precondition?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, there was a meeting in Geneva with the Iranian nuclear negotiator which included a very senior US representative. That demonstrates that we—the US included—have sought to do everything we can to find a diplomatic way forward. The latest Iranian offer is made with an eye to the American elections and, in a sense, it is for America to indicate whether it is willing to comply with that. Our difficulty is that there is a continuous offer of talks from Iran but very little recent evidence of compliance with the IAEA, which, despite the regime to which the noble Baroness refers, feels that at this stage it is not receiving the information it requires to verify the nature of Iran's programme.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, interestingly, the Minister mentioned the concept of new thinking inside Iran. He is right to say that Iran is under grave economic pressures at the moment, partly from the financial sanctions, partly from the collapse in the oil price and partly due to a number of other developments. As a result and given, as my noble friend Lord Mawhinney says, that nothing much seems to be changing as a result of all the talk of sanctions—the mullahs are very obdurate—are we now reaching a time when the combination of the financial pressures from outside, which certainly should be maintained, the more co-operative move towards working with, or co-opting, the Iranian nuclear programme and whether it can be developed in a civil, constructive and a transparent way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams indicated, may be producing the new thinking needed to move the situation forward?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that there is a very generous offer on the table to allow Iran to continue with the development of a peaceful nuclear programme. We shall need to continue to pay attention to that incentive and not just to the sanctions—not just the stick but the carrot as well.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister report any progress in our attempts to persuade Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, in the time available to me, no.

NHS: Specialist Drug Treatments

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce co-payments for specialist NHS drug treatments; and under what circumstances co-payment is now permitted in the National Health Service.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it is difficult to give a full answer to the Question now because Professor Richards, the National Cancer Director, is reviewing the issue. I can, however, tell the noble Baroness that he will report to the Secretary of State at the end of the month, and his findings will be published shortly thereafter.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which was of course unsatisfactory, because everyone wants a solution. Does she agree that, although we would all like to see equity in the health service, such equity cannot and does not exist? We read today that new heart treatments will be available for those who live near a big hospital, and we know that one's recovery from a stroke depends on whether there is a stroke unit in the local hospital. There already is great inequity. Enabling people to buy life-saving drugs would not add to the degree of inequity that already exists.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Baroness points to the fact that there is variation in how individual trusts are applying current guidance. Some trusts are allowing patients to buy additional private drugs and retain their entitlement to NHS care while others are not. That is why the Secretary of State asked Professor Mike Richards to lead a review into that difficult issue. Since June, he has sought views from a wide range of people and organisations, including patients, clinicians, academics and NHS organisations. As I said, the results of that deliberation will be before us very soon.

Baroness Golding: My Lords, did not the British Medical Association suggest setting up a royal commission on this very subject? What is the Government's view of that idea?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the British Medical Association has indeed written to the Secretary of State asking for a royal commission on this issue. However, the Secretary of State has deliberately set a tight deadline for the review, while allowing time to consider what are difficult and complex issues. I am sure that the House will appreciate that we want to minimise the period of uncertainty for patients. That is why the review is not a royal commission and why we are asking for it to be completed within three months.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that a year ago the Minister told the House that co-payments did not form part of the basic principles of the NHS? Now we discover that a number of NHS trusts have been carrying out co-payment, presumably without the knowledge of the Department of Health, which is in itself extraordinary. The Minister says that the review is urgently to be announced. The original promise was September; that has gone, we are nearly through October; presumably we may get something in November. Would not the whole issue be solved much better if NICE got on and reviewed all the cancer drugs and gave some results urgently to patients of the NHS to ensure that all those modern drugs are available for all NHS patients?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, as he often does, the noble Lord asked many questions at the same time; I will try to answer them all. One of the recommendations of the review conducted by my noble friend Lord Darzi last year was that NICE should be asked to speed up the process; that is what is being considered and implemented at the moment. There is no suggestion that trusts are breaking the current national guidelines; the problem is the interpretation of that national guidance. That is why the review is taking place now. I think that I can assure the House that it will be reported to the Secretary of State before the end of this month and that, at the beginning of next month, a Statement will be made to the House.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, under the system of co-payment being worked on by the Department of Health, will the ability to pay mean that patients have quicker access to diagnosis and treatment?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the whole point of the review is that the principle of ability to pay is not taken into account in people's access to drugs. They should be able to get the appropriate drugs they need when they need them. The Government have increased the drugs budget enormously in the past 10 years or so. The question really is: how can we ensure that we do not have different things going on in different parts of the country? I am sorry that I keep repeating myself, but the review is taking place and it will be reported on very soon.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the point made by my noble friend Lord Naseby: she told this House some time ago that the practice was to cease paying NHS costs when a patient went to get private drugs. This clearly has not been happening in certain areas. Why was that? Was she not aware of the fact that it was going on in certain parts of the country; or did she not know what was going on at all?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, that may be slightly unfair of the noble Lord. The interpretation of the guidance is being implemented in different ways in different localities. I have said that three times; I shall say it again. That is why we are having the review: so that that interpretation can be made fairer across the country.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, will the devolved health administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be included in this review?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, because the administrations are devolved, particularly in Scotland, they operate on a different basis. However, I am assured that discussions are taking place at the same time so that they are fully informed and involved in the review. They will then have to decide how they react to it.

EU: Security Strategy

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to promote public debate in the United Kingdom and across the European Union on the revised European security strategy which is expected to be on the agenda of the European Council in December.

Lord Malloch-Brown: The European security strategy was adopted in 2003, and its implementation is currently being reviewed. A number of debates have taken place across Europe in relation to the review, with the participation of Javier Solana's team as well as member states. The main vehicle for promoting UK debate on the EU is our own Global Europe agenda, which sets out our aspiration for the EU to deliver on the issues that matter most to citizens in Europe—from competitiveness and jobs to the environment and security.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that good defensive Answer. He may recall that, when the European security strategy was launched in 2003, the British Government—as, to be fair, did several other Governments—did their best to avoid having a public debate on the issue. It seems that the same is happening again. The Government's Global Europe agenda does not really address issues of a common strategy towards Russia or a common approach to the complex problems of the Middle East. Given that even the leader and the foreign affairs spokesman of the Conservative Party have suggested that Europe needs a common policy towards Russia, is it not time for the Government to promote public debate in Britain and in other countries about what sort of security strategy we need in common?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point. It would be a great advance if the Opposition were indeed to call for a debate on a common European security policy. Although the original 2003 document is no doubt very good, I must point out that it had only one line on relations with Russia.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, is not one highly relevant means of promoting debate—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we should hear from the Cross Benches first.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that one of the great merits of the 2003 strategy was that it identified enlargement of the European Union as an absolutely key part of its future security? That was, of course, before the countries in central, eastern and southern Europe joined. Does he agree that it is now very important that the review that is under way emphasises that further enlargement continues to be an integral part of Europe's security and needs to be given full prominence in the reviewed policy?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. This document is peppered with wisdom on a number of issues and has held up well in the light of subsequent years. Certainly, this Government's commitment to enlargement remains known.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government have a view on the impact on the European security strategy of Russia's new-found interest in Iceland and its apparent readiness to bail it out of its financial difficulties, no doubt in exchange for certain favours in the future that might change the whole security aspect in this region?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I think the noble Lord would agree that we need to wait and see exactly what has happened. I certainly saw a press report at the weekend that the negotiations had broken down. As noble Lords know, the UK has also sought to support Iceland banks and to meet the accounts of individual account holders here.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a very relevant way of promoting debate is the inquiry, which is now under way, by the European Union Sub-Committee C, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace? That report, which will be published well before the next Council session, should be quite a contribution to public debate.

Lord Malloch-Brown: I agree, my Lords.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the EU security and defence planning teams are now working positively with their NATO counterparts and vice versa?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to draw attention to that. It is one of the great outcomes of a European security policy that, whether in Georgia, Chad or a dozen or so other places over the years, we are seeing increasingly effective European niche security operations that combine police, military and civilian elements to deal with problems that are outside NATO's direct responsibility and for which a European force is politically and often technically best suited.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, does the Minister admit that the existing European security strategy document is succinct and straightforward? The problem is getting European countries to commit their armed forces to fighting against world threats, which we see demonstrated in Afghanistan where, on the whole, the contribution of our European allies is pitiful.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord may have seen that today, tragically, two German soldiers have lost their lives. Europe is making a significant contribution through NATO, rather than through a pure European formulation. We have to work to win that war and to make sure that we are united in that purpose.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister have plans to make public speeches either in Britain or elsewhere in the European Union on the European security strategy or on the need for closer co-operation in foreign and security policy?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, we talk to the second all the time. The Georgia situation means that we are permanently discussing closer co-operation. As to the broader generic, the noble Lord has put me on the spot. I will have pleasure in writing to inform him of the answer.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, what is the precise practical process under which the debate is taking place?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, Mr Solana is leading a review which will report back to the European Foreign Ministers Council in December. During the year, Mr Solana and his team have had consultations with public groups and member states.

Business

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon will repeat the Statement on the European Council at a convenient point after 3.30 pm.

Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 36
	Schedule 1Clauses 37 to 41Schedule 2Clauses 42 to 74Schedule 3 Clauses 75 to 96Schedule 4Clause 97Schedule 5Clauses 98 to 102.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning Bill

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
	Clause 111 [Development for which development consent may be granted]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 337:
	Clause 111, page 57, line 1, leave out from "required" to end of line 7

Baroness Hamwee: Noble Lords are probably quite right to be leaving the Chamber; we will be discussing technicalities, and this is not the most riveting group of amendments—although the Minister is looking as if she feels that every group is riveting. I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 338 in this group, but not to Amendments Nos. 339 and 341, as we have adequately covered those issues at this stage. The Minister's amendments in this group are completely unrelated to mine, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will be arguing that Clause 114 should not stand part of the Bill.
	My amendments apply to Clause 111, which deals with development for which development consent—planning permission, in common parlance—may be granted by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Amendment No. 337 would delete the definition of "associated development" which was added during Committee stage in the Commons. I suppose that one will not get brownie points with the other place if one seems to be arguing that something that they put into a Bill should come out, but the definition was added with the explanation that it was to clarify the definition of "England" and some matters regarding Wales and I am concerned about its scope.
	I realise now that the words "the development" in subsection (5) refer to the associated development. I had been puzzled by the wording, and therefore by the subsection. As I say, however, subsections (2)(a) and (6) are drawn very widely—or are capable of being interpreted as such—in allowing the IPC to give permission for associated development which is more or less development associated with the main subject of the application. I am concerned that the scope is inappropriately wide.
	I have a question for the Minister. In view of the wording of Clause 110, the IPC cannot give consent to an application while excluding a part of it; the consent is either for the whole application or for nothing. Will it deal with associated development at the same time? Will guidance limit the associated development to what is necessary—which is perhaps the amendment that I should have tabled in the first place—or will it limit the consent to what is within the site of the application? As the provisions are now, it looks as if one could get development consent for, say, a power station and, as something associated with it, an office in a nearby town acting as an inquiry centre for local people. The term is extremely wide and I look forward to the Minister's justification for it. I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Grouped with these amendments is the Question whether Clause 114 should stand part of the Bill, tabled in my name. I should say straightaway that I have tabled this in order to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify and explain the purpose of the new procedure for a legal challenge against a decision made by the IPC. I referred in earlier debates to the process for judicial review, which has become such a notable feature of our constitutional arrangements, in marked contradistinction to what was happening as recently as 20 years ago, and I am puzzled why this process is thought more appropriate than the customary statutory challenge made under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That has seemed to be a reasonable and effective method of challenge and I cannot believe that resorting to judicial review will necessarily expedite such actions.
	The clause prescribes as the deadline for bringing a judicial review a short period of only six weeks from the day on which the order or statement of reasons for making the order is published. That compares with the period of three months allowed under the statutory challenge, which of course is based on normal civil procedure rules. I suggest to the Minister that the shorter period will encourage more people than is the case at present to pursue judicial review against decisions taken by the commissioners in order to get through the gate before it closes. I cannot believe that that is what the Minister wants. This is a new area of uncertainty which has been introduced into the system and I am puzzled why the Government have done it. I hope the Minister will be able to explain the position.

Baroness Andrews: This is a fascinating group of amendments and I am pleased that we are kicking off with it in our debates today. I shall respond first to Amendments Nos. 337 and 338, tabled by the noble Baroness. They would remove the provision in Clause 111 for an order granting development consent to be able to cover associated development as well. In effect, that would mean that an order could grant development consent only for development that is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project, as described in Clauses 14, 30 and 31.
	The noble Baroness made it clear that she is concerned about the scope of this provision. She feels that it is inappropriately wide and seeks reassurance that it will not be misused or used inappropriately. We are seeking to ensure that the new regime has clear boundaries and does not allow unrelated development to sneak through the back door. That is the burden of it. I understand the noble Baroness's concerns, but before I address her specific questions I shall say a little about the scope of the clause.
	Removing the provisions, as the amendments propose, would have serious consequences. Essentially, it would mean that development that was not part of a nationally significant infrastructure project but needed to facilitate it—for example, highways works and works in mitigation—could not be granted development consent by order. Any associated works would therefore need planning permission through the TCP system as it stands.
	As has been described in previous debates in Committee, the whole point of the Planning Bill is to make a single process out of what is now a disparate, contradictory and awkward one. The amendment would take us away from the spirit of the Bill by introducing another fragmentation. It would be inefficient and completely contrary because the Bill seeks to rationalise the various different regimes that currently exist and introduce a new single consent regime so that developers could make a single application. Granting consent for associated works is therefore completely consistent and a logical element in that overall process.
	We want to ensure that a promoter can combine the "core element" of a nationally significant infrastructure project together with associated works in a single application. Such associated works might include ensuring that the new infrastructure is connected to other national networks, for example, or other development which is needed to allow the infrastructure to operate as intended. I stress that associated works do not include the construction or extension of housing.
	I can reassure the noble Baroness that, to ensure that this provision is not misused, the Secretary of State will set out guidance on what should or should not be considered an associated work which could form part of an order granting development consent. Where doubt remains, the IPC—which we know is independent and impartial—will decide the issue based on the guidance set out by the Secretary of State. If the IPC does not believe that the proposed works count as associated development, they will not be included in an order granting development consent.
	I hope that I can answer categorically the two questions raised by the noble Baroness, of which she was kind enough to give me forewarning. She asked whether consent can be all or nothing. She is right up to a point. The IPC can grant consent on a different basis from that put forward by the developer—for example, in mitigation. If the IPC decides that the alignment of a runway needs to be corrected, to take an exaggerated example, it will have the flexibility to do that. That flexibility is extremely important. The IPC will be able to take a middle way, shall we say, between all or nothing. It will also deal with associated development at the same time as part of the attempt to streamline the process.
	On the question of whether the guidance will be limited to necessary or associated development, the answer is that it must be necessary, because the guidance itself must be relevant. It is unlikely that it will have too broad a scope and take itself into fields that are not necessary. It will have to cover that point in the kind of criteria that it works through. As the noble Baroness will know, guidance is found in Clause 111, in Part 6. I hope that that takes care of both those details.

Baroness Hamwee: Before the Minister moves on, the part that puzzles me is her reference to something like "highway required for the project to be able to function". I understand that a road extension or whatever may be needed for the project to function, but should that not be part of the original application? One reason why I am concerned about this is the danger, if it is not included in the original application, of consultation on it not being adequate because people will not have their minds directed to it.

Baroness Andrews: The noble Baroness is right in that respect. The purpose of a single consent regime is to present an application that is coherent and sustainable and takes into account all the implications, unlike some of the applications we have had where you find yourself further down the line looking at highway requirements that are significant but were not addressed in the original application.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hesitate to interrupt, but would the Minister mind answering a question about a different subject? It is related to associated development, and I have raised it with her before. I am talking about carbon dioxide pipelines, and the reason for raising the subject once again is that over the weekend there were reports that some generating companies were considering putting in applications for further coal-fired electricity generation across the country. That is fine. All these generating stations are to be carbon-sequestration compatible, whatever that may mean; we do not know if carbon sequestration will either work or be economical if it does work. We know it is technically possible, but that is the limit of our knowledge at the moment.
	Those pipelines, if they are part of the original application, will undoubtedly, under the Minister's explanation, be associated development and will cause no problem. Associated development they may well be, though. But because no one knows whether this will work, and may not know for a decade, would that be considered part of the original application when it eventually arose, or would it have to be a completely separate application? For the sake of those who might be thinking these things through, it is essential to have that defined so they know what ground they are standing on before they start on this particular type of enterprise.

Baroness Andrews: The noble Lord has partially answered the question. As he says, we do not know at the moment what technologies are going to be needed to carry this form of whatever one calls it. So long as that is the case, it is difficult to be categorical. However, I feel sure that the principle would apply that, if we have the technology and we can do this, which would be very useful, then in due course that would count as "associated development" because it would be part of making the infrastructure itself function. I would rather take advice on this from my colleagues in BERR and write to the noble Lord, to see if we can give him a more specific answer.

Lord Dixon-Smith: If I may clarify the question, it is not so much whether the pipelines would be associated development but whether, if it was some years later, they would require a completely separate application.

Baroness Andrews: I do not know the answer to that; it would depend a bit on the scope of the original application. I should like to think about that because there are some significant implications there.
	I turn to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. We have had a related debate on the role of judicial review at different points in our consideration of the Bill and I am sure that he will remember the arguments that we have put forward. He has asked me a slightly broader question: why, as I understand it, we are not providing for an appeal mechanism under the other arrangements that we have. The answer is that we have created a process that is very thorough and is iterative at all stages. When we come to the decision that is made by the IPC, we do not think that at that point it makes sense to create an opportunity for a right of appeal that would reopen the process and would involve the appellant body standing in the shoes of the original decision-maker. Throughout this process we are trying to create something that is rather different from anything we have had before, and which is thorough and robust. We believe, therefore, that judicial review is the best and most appropriate step after that.
	The noble Lord also asked about the timetable. He will know that one of our concerns is about creating a process which can be trusted because it is transparent and thorough but which also removes unnecessary delays. The six-week deadline for filing a claim form is, I believe, reasonable, because it will come at the end of a process which has been unusually thorough and different from what we have in the planning system at the moment. We are intent on making sure that those processes are fair. The six-week time limit for putting in a claim will not come out of the blue; there will be issues which will have been very well rehearsed and attitudes which will have been taken, and I think that the timetable is appropriate. However, it is not an entirely new provision: the six-week time limit for challenges is similar to that which currently exists for statutory challenges to certain development control decisions taken by the Secretary of State under the TCPA. We are not creating a new process, as there is a relevant precedent.
	Finally, government Amendments Nos. 344 and 345 will remove the need for orders granting development consent to be made under the seal of the commission or the Secretary of State. On reflection, we do not think that orders need to be made under seal, and SIs are not generally made under seal. As such, we do not think it would be sensible to require this in the Bill. However, it remains the case that the IPC may enter into deeds which, by law, still need to be made under seal in the case of a body corporate. The Bill therefore retains the provision relating to seals in paragraph 23 of Schedule 1.
	Amendment No. 345 will also remove the requirement for interested parties to be sent a copy of the order granting development consent. We believe that that would quite simply be an unnecessary expense; interested parties will already receive a copy of the decision letter and statement of reasons under Clause 112.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, withdraws her amendment, as I suspect she may, let me say that I would like to study what the Minister has said. I am not wholly convinced by her arguments; she rattles along at a fair old pace, and although I try to hear everything she says, it is right that I should study what she has said in Hansard. We may need to come back to this on Report.

Baroness Hamwee: I, too, will study what the noble Baroness has said. She agreed with my points, which has led me to the conclusion that highways, to take one example, would be part of the original application, so I do not see that it is associated development. However, I think we can pursue this outside the Chamber if I am still getting it wrong. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 338 not moved.]
	Clause 111 agreed to.
	Clause 112 [Reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent]:
	[Amendments Nos. 339 to 341 not moved.]
	Clause 112 agreed to.
	Clause 113 [Orders granting development consent: formalities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 342 and 343 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 344 to 345:
	Clause 113, page 57, line 41, leave out ", and under the seal,"
	Clause 113, page 58, line 1, leave out subsections (3) and (4)
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 346 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 347:
	Clause 113, page 58, line 6, at beginning insert "Except in a case within subsection (5A),"

Baroness Andrews: I shall endeavour not to rattle through this group of amendments. I am not trying to make it more difficult for noble Lords to follow the argument, and I will try to slow down. We have been taking rather big bundles of amendments, with the consent of the Committee.
	This group of amendments is by way of a response to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concerning the formalities for making orders granting development consent and parliamentary scrutiny regulations affecting the framework for decisions on applications.
	I shall deal first with the committee's recommendations on formalities for orders and the amendments for accepting them. The recommendations relate to Clause 116, which confers on the IPC and the Secretary of State limited powers to include legislative provisions in an order granting development consent. These powers are likely to be exercised to facilitate transport projects, particularly in the case of railways. The legislative powers may be exercised also where land is being compulsorily acquired and provision needs to be made in relation to compensation, or where provision has to be made for the mitigation of injurious effects of public works in connection with the statutory defence to nuisance proceedings.
	Clause 217 currently provides that an order granting development consent is not exercisable by statutory instrument. There is generally no requirement that an order be laid before Parliament, although in relation to certain special types of land the order is subject to the special parliamentary procedure. In its 12th report of this Session, however, the DPRRC recommended that orders made in exercise of the legislative powers should be contained in a statutory instrument. It recommended that such an instrument should be laid before Parliament, but should not be subject to any parliamentary procedure.
	By way of background, I inform the Committee that the proposal for orders containing legislative provisions to be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument would not represent a radical departure from existing procedures. Orders under Sections 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act, Sections 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964 and compulsory works orders under the Water Industry Act 1991 must all be made by statutory instrument, because such orders may contain legislative provisions.
	The main effect of requiring orders of the Secretary of State to be made by statutory instrument would be to apply the procedural requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, which cover numbering, printing, publication, citation, classification—as local or general—and sale.We fully accept that these procedures are appropriate in the case of orders granting development consent containing legislative provisions. What is more, we agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it is an omission for there to be no express requirement in the Bill for Parliament to be notified of changes to legislation which it has previously enacted.
	We have given careful consideration to precisely how the committee's objectives might most sensibly be achieved. The Transport and Works Act 1992 requires that a copy of the order, and associated plans and books of reference, be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments. As noble Lords will know, the Clerk is, among other things, the custodian of the records of Parliament stored in this House. His records include a collection of plans and books of reference in connection with schemes authorised by private Acts. The House of Lords Record Office should therefore continue to maintain a comprehensive record of key documents relating to major transport schemes.
	We do not want the commission to separate the legislative provisions from the other provisions in an order such as the granting of development consent, which would be unhelpful to the Clerk and introduce unnecessary complexity if there were required to be two orders in respect of a single project.Amendments Nos. 347 to 349 will therefore insert a requirement in Clause 113 that an order including legislative provisions be made by statutory instrument. A copy of the order must be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments along with the latest version of any plan submitted to the commission by the applicant and the statement of reasons for the decision to grant development consent.
	Amendments Nos. 355 and 357 relate to the correction of errors in an order containing legislative provisions. The amendments insert into paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 provision equivalent to the new subsections inserted into Clause 113 by Amendment No. 348. The effect is that a development consent order containing legislative provisions will be able to be corrected only by means of another statutory instrument.
	Amendments Nos. 391 and 392 insert into paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 provision equivalent to that inserted by Amendments Nos. 355 and 357, so that non-material changes to development consent orders required to be made by statutory instrument may be made only by a further statutory instrument. Amendment No. 393 inserts equivalent provision into paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 in relation to changes to and revocation of such orders.Amendments Nos. 449 to 451, which amend Clause 217, make it clear that the affirmative procedure for parliamentary scrutiny does not apply in relation to orders granting development consent.
	Amendments Nos. 352 to 354 insert additional words into Clause 114 to specify the day on which the six-week time period for filling a claim form begins to run in the case of an order made by statutory instrument that corrects, changes or revokes a development consent order. This is the day on which the order making the correction, change or revocation is published.
	Amendment No. 453 is our response to the other recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, relating to the new development consent regime. This amendment relates to Clauses 101 and 102, which set the framework for decisions on applications for orders granting development consent. These two clauses confer on the Secretary of State the power to prescribe in regulations additional matters to which regard must be had when decisions are taken. As the Bill is currently drafted, negative resolution procedure is specified for scrutiny of any such regulations.
	The committee has pointed out that regulations under Clauses 101(2) and 102(2) would set out a significant part of the framework within which decisions will be taken. For example, regulations could be made that would require the commission to have regard to matters relating to design in particular cases or to matters relating to the preservation of any listed buildings. We agree that regulations made under this power would be significant and therefore in line with the committee's recommendations, Amendments Nos. 451 and 453 adopt the affirmative resolution procedure for regulations made under these subsections. This change is straightforward and I anticipate that it will be universally welcomed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 348 and 349:
	Clause 113, page 58, line 7, at end insert—
	"(5A) If the order includes provision made in the exercise of any of the powers conferred by section 116(5)(a) or (b), the order must be contained in a statutory instrument.
	(5B) If the instrument containing the order is made by a Panel or the Council in the name of the Commission, the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applies in relation to the instrument as if it had been made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(5C) As soon as practicable after the instrument is made, the appropriate authority must deposit in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments a copy of—
	(a) the instrument,(b) the latest version of any plan supplied by the applicant in connection with the application for the order contained in the instrument, and(c) the statement of reasons prepared under section 112(1)."
	Clause 113, page 58, line 8, leave out "subsections (4) and (5)" and insert "this section"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 350 and 351 not moved.]
	Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 114 [Legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting developmentconsent]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 352 to 354:
	Clause 114, page 58, line 40, at end insert "or, if the correction is required to be made by order contained in a statutory instrument, the day on which the order is published"
	Clause 114, page 59, line 3, at end insert "or, if the change to the order is required to be made by order contained in a statutory instrument, the day on which the order making the change is published"
	Clause 114, page 59, line 10, at end insert "or, if the change or revocation is required to be made by order contained in a statutory instrument, the day on which the order making the change or revocation is published"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 115 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Correction of errors in development consent decisions]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 355 to 357:
	Schedule 4, page 160, line 32, at end insert—
	"(7A) If—
	(a) the decision document is an order granting development consent, and(b) the order was required to be contained in a statutory instrument,the power conferred by sub-paragraph (4) may be exercised only by order contained in a statutory instrument.
	(7B) If the instrument containing the order is made by the Commission, the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applies in relation to the instrument as if it had been made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(7C) As soon as practicable after the instrument is made, the appropriate authority must deposit a copy of it in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments."
	Schedule 4, page 161, line 6, leave out paragraph (b)
	Schedule 4, page 161, line 19, at end insert ", or, if the correction is required to be made by order contained in a statutory instrument, the date specified in the order"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 358 not moved.]
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 116 [What may be included in order granting development consent]:
	[Amendment No. 359 not moved.]

Lord Patel of Bradford: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

European Council: 15-16 October 2008

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the European Council held in Brussels, which I attended with my right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary on 15 and 16 October, the main business of which was to consider European actions to stabilise financial markets and how we can work together to reform our international financial systems. The Council also welcomed the co-ordinated interest rate cut by central banks around the world.
	"At the heart of our considerations was our shared understanding that the massive reduction in global financial activity and the fracturing of the global financial system has been the result of irresponsible and often undisclosed lending that started in American sub-prime markets. And, while national action is necessary, the root problem can only be dealt with by changes in our financial systems—to recapitalise banks and to reform supervision around the principle of rewarding hard work, enterprise and responsible risk-taking, but not irresponsibility and excess.
	"Market estimates suggest that in recent years some $2 trillion of US originated loans—many of them toxic—were bought by EU banks. So, to strengthen our banks, the Council welcomed the comprehensive action on liquidity, capital and funding guarantees of our Government and of the euro-zone countries under the leadership of President Sarkozy, President Barroso and, ECB President, Jean-Claude Trichet.
	"The Council also welcomed the joint commitment from the leaders of the G8 countries to hold a leaders' meeting and agreed the principles and priority areas for global action.
	"Stage one to recovery has been to stabilise financial markets, thereby securing a resumption of lending. In Britain almost £50 billion has been injected as capital into our banks. The Government alone have taken shares worth £37 billion in two of our largest banks. And across the world more than £300 billion has now been approved from public funds to recapitalise the banking system.
	"At the heart of the British decision was that medium-term funding was conditional on bank recapitalisation. We also welcome the agreement of the Council that EU countries will provide medium-term state guarantees for new interbank loans.
	"I particularly welcome the decision of the European Investment Bank, following my initial proposals at the G4 summit in Paris earlier this month, to mobilise and frontload €30 billion to support new lending to Europe's, and then Britain's, small businesses.
	"However, confidence today depends also on there being confidence about the future. So we agreed on the need to achieve a reform of the global financial system around five key principles—transparency, integrity, responsibility, sound banking practice and global governance with co-ordination across borders.
	"We will submit a detailed set of proposals to the international leaders meeting. I can tell the House today that I will be putting these proposals to all countries, including emerging countries. I have already put them to President Bush. They include insisting on openness and disclosure, with off balance sheet vehicles brought back on to balance sheets, greater transparency around the use of credit derivatives, and a rapid adoption of internationally agreed accounting standards so that value-impaired assets can no longer be hidden; removing once and for all the conflicts of interest which have distorted behaviour and undermined trust, so that credit rating agencies no longer act as advisers to the companies they rate and executive remuneration rewards not excessive or irresponsible risk taking but hard work, enterprise, effort and responsible risk taking; ensuring board members have the competence and expertise to manage the risks for which they are ultimately responsible, and cannot walk away from their obligations; regulation which looks at both solvency and liquidity and ensures that the financial system supports wider economic stability; and a new international architecture for the global financial sector for the years ahead.
	"So we want to move to early decisions with our international partners about reform of the International Monetary Fund and Financial Stability Forum, including the creation of an early warning system for the global economy; globally accepted standards of supervision applied equally and consistently in all countries; effective cross-border supervision of global firms, starting with establishing 30 international colleges of supervisors by the end of this year; cross-border co-operation and concerted action in a crisis; and we also want to see greater global macroeconomic co-ordination and, to prevent the return of protectionism, we want to see the reopening of the world trade talks. And I welcome the proposals from Australian Prime Minister Rudd.
	"The events of the past few days have demonstrated that we need urgently to deploy in eastern Europe and emerging markets the IMF's facilities and resources to the fullest extent—and also the resources of the multilateral development banks—to prevent capital flight, to engage in and support countercyclical policies and to finance domestic growth where exports have declined and capital has flown outwards. We need urgently to consider creating a new IMF facility for emerging economies in the current crisis. Rescuing eastern European countries is particularly urgent and I have asked the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank and the World Bank to consider what they can do immediately.
	"The Council also discussed in detail how each of our economies was being affected by the global economic downturn that started in America. Had we not acted to stabilise the banking system, the effect on households and businesses would have been even more severe; but, notwithstanding the action that has been taken, the world is facing a severe global economic downturn, with negative growth already seen in France, Germany and Italy this year and in the US last year. The UK cannot insulate itself from this global downturn, but with interest rates low and falling and inflation expected to come down over the next year, our underlying economic indicators are stronger than at any other previous downturn. Debt has been considerably lower than a decade ago, and lower than all G7 countries except Canada, enabling the Government to increase borrowing at the right time to support the economy. The Government will do whatever it takes for mortgage-holders, for small firms and for employees to help families and business through what will undoubtedly be a difficult period ahead. We will bring the same focus and determination to the task of protecting jobs, homes and small business as we did to avert the threatened meltdown of the financial system.
	"That will be the central mission of the Government over the coming weeks and months, and I welcome the support, in the national interest, of all prepared to give that support.
	"The Council also reached important conclusions on energy and climate change; on Russia and Georgia; and on the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. Next year in Copenhagen, the world has an historic opportunity to secure prosperity for generations ahead with international action on climate change. While there are those who will seek to use current global financial problems as an excuse to pull back from change, to pull up the drawbridge and renege on our commitments, in fact it is now more essential than ever before to push forwards with our ambitious agenda on energy security and climate change. As the Stern report showed, weak or delayed action will cost us all more in the years to come, both financially and economically. The Council reaffirmed its commitment to reach agreement by December on its energy and climate change package for 2020. We made clear the importance in doing so of achieving a fair balance, with all member states accepting new commitments; that there must be flexibility for member states to meet targets in the most cost-effective way; and that Europe's package must send the strongest possible signal to encourage the rest of the world to aim high at the Copenhagen summit next year.
	"As last week's Statement from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change made clear, the Government are committed to the most ambitious targets, cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of this century, not just for the future of our environment, but as a crucial part of our strategy for energy security. But we cannot fulfil our aspirations for climate change without nuclear power and European and international co-operation. That is why we will fully engage with the European Union on the environment and not pursue a policy based on unilateralism and detachment. Faced with historically high and volatile oil prices, it is more essential than ever before that we act to end our dependency on oil.
	"The Council looked for greater diversification of energy sources, the completion of fully functioning EU energy markets and improved critical energy infrastructure—for example, in the southern corridor. Our London energy meeting in December will seek to drive forward progress in the critical dialogue between oil-producing and oil-consuming nations. Today, I would urge OPEC at its meeting on Friday to work through dialogue with consumer countries to stabilise the energy market as a whole.
	"The Council has expressed its grave concern over Russia's actions in Georgia and called on all sides to implement in full the six-point plan agreed with European leaders. The Council therefore welcomed the withdrawal of Russian troops as an essential additional step in the implementation of the agreements of 12 August and 8 September, and the launching in Geneva of the international discussions provided for by those agreements. The Council and Commission will continue to make a full in-depth evaluation of relations with Russia ahead of the EU/Russia summit in Nice next month. The Council also resolved to continue to support its eastern neighbours in their efforts to achieve democracy and economic modernisation, and to consider a future EU eastern partnership.
	"Finally, the Council considered the European pact on immigration and asylum, underlining the importance of ensuring coherence between Union policies, including free movement. Britain and Europe benefit economically from free movement, but free movement cannot be an unfettered right. It must bring with it clear responsibilities, with failure to meet them carrying clear consequences, including, where appropriate, the loss of that right entirely. I discussed this point in further detail with a number of European leaders in the margins of the Council, building considerable support across member states and agreement to look further at the responsibilities associated with free movement where crimes are committed by EU residents in the EU, but outside their country of origin, and to return to this issue in December.
	"This summit showed that in facing global challenges, whether the credit crunch, climate change or energy security, we succeed best not in isolation but in co-operation, not with unilateralism and separation from our European neighbours, but in active partnership with them. That is why our policy will rightly remain one of being fully engaged at the centre of Europe, and I commend the Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement and warmly welcome her to the duty of repeating these important Statements.
	Nearly 500 noble Lords voted in a Division on the Lisbon treaty this summer, which was a record for the reformed House of Lords. I do not see them all here today, but these are matters of great interest to the House, and I think I speak for the whole House in saying how much we appreciate reports from the the noble Baroness and her predecessors on EU summits.
	I much regret that there was not more concrete progress on climate change, but is it not inevitable that world recession will cause some countries to reassess their shorter-term priorities? The UK Government have reasserted immensely tough unilateral targets on this important policy, but can the noble Baroness explain how it is that Mr Miliband's part of the Government is trying to restrain hydrocarbon use, while the Prime Minister is campaigning for lower prices that will promote its use? In the context of the Prime Minister's call for lower petrol prices, have the Cabinet given any consideration to cutting fuel duty, or is it simply a combination of policy incoherence and political spin?
	Reinforced as her Benches are by the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, does the noble Baroness share my disappointment that there was no commitment to restarting international trade negotiations, to which the noble Lord devoted so much time, sadly all in vain?
	We hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been reading up on the history of the great depression. Well, that should cheer the country up. Was not one of the abiding lessons of that time that protectionism was a disastrous factor in exacerbating recession or what is now called contraction?
	Much consideration at the summit was given to energy security, but is that not precisely the sort of question that we should have been tackling more than a decade ago? Can the noble Baroness place a report in the House on the EU's current estimate of the percentage of future EU energy need that will be sourced from Russia?
	There was also much talk of immigration. That, too, I may venture to say, was hopelessly belated. The Council agreed a high-sounding new EU pact, including joint consular services, joint border guards, sharing asylum seekers and a single asylum procedure. However, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the Government will agree to nothing in these discussions, now or ever, that will detract from the UK Government's absolute right to limit non-EU entry into this country based on our national need and not on other nations' problems?
	In the closing paragraphs of the Statement, the Prime Minister mentioned,
	"crimes ... committed by EU residents in the EU but outside their country of origin".
	Why did the Prime Minister refer to that? Is this a new initiative being taken forward by the Council of Ministers? Can the noble Baroness put any flesh on those bones?
	While rightly deploring the Russian invasion of Georgia, the communiqué was a little light on solutions. There is talk of a full, in-depth re-evaluation, but such diplomatic flannel seems to cover divergence in opinion in Europe on whether to do deals with Russia or to take a firm line with Russia. Where do the UK Government stand? Fudged lowest common denominator policies will not deflect those ready for violent breaches of international law. Is it not essential that we have the highest common clarity in the face of this indefensible action?
	Will the noble Baroness lay in the Library of the House a summary of the report of the Taoiseach on the situation following the rejection of the Lisbon treaty? The communiqué talks about "resolving the situation". Does that mean making the Irish people vote a second time? Do the UK Government support that policy of, "We'll only listen if you tell us what we want to hear?" Would it not be a disgrace to force the Irish people to vote twice when the British people have not been allowed to vote once on this treaty?
	On the financial crisis, to which the Lisbon treaty was utterly irrelevant, I reaffirm our support for coherent action. However, nothing can hide the fact that many of the economic problems facing this country are home grown. Talk of being the "saviour of the world" may sound as hollow and hubristic as recession bites as does "ending boom and bust". I agree with the Prime Minister that there is a need to strengthen the IMF early warning system, but is not the real question what we do in response to warnings? Eighteen months ago the IMF warned the UK about fast rising household debt, vulnerable financial institutions and potentially illiquid instruments and exposure to risk. I think we all recognise these words and their effects, yet why did not the Government respond to those warnings and fix the roof when the sun was shining?
	International co-operation is vital on this subject, but no substitute for effective domestic action. The City of London remains uniquely important to our economy. There is simply no parallel in most other EU member states. So will the Government resist robustly efforts to create a single European super vision of the City? Is not one of the lessons of recent weeks not that we need a Bank of Europe regulating the City, but that it was a catastrophic error to take the supervisory role away from the Bank of England in the first place?
	The Prime Minister asked for confidence in the future, but how can we have confidence in the future when we have Labour's past record to look at? Figures now show that Britain has borrowed £38 billion in the first half of the year. We are heading for our worst ever Budget deficit. What benefit is the backslapping of the Prime Minister in Brussels to those in the real economy outside the summit chamber who now face lay-offs, repossessions, joblessness, collapsing incomes in retirement and lost business livelihoods, not due to the world outside but to 11 years of spend, borrow and waste economics, for which the answer proposed is yet more borrowing?
	Finally, can the noble Baroness confirm that the usual channels have agreed, in principle at least, that there should be a debate to discuss the global financial situation and that the Government are seeking to find a date? We very much hope that an announcement on that will be made fairly soon.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I start where the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, ended. We on these Benches would also welcome an early statement on a full debate. Given the galaxy of talent on all Benches, I suspect that we might need more than one day's debate. The sooner that is held, the better.
	The Prime Minister's Statement saved the best till last, saying that,
	"we succeed best not in isolation but in co-operation, not with unilateralism and separation from our European neighbours but in active partnership with them".
	How very true. I wish only that the Prime Minister had been whispering that in the then Prime Minister's ear in 1997 and 1998, and had not waited for more than a decade to learn that truth.
	As for the reference to the Lisbon treaty, I can say only that I suspect that the majority in favour of the Lisbon treaty would be even larger if the vote were held today. One of the things that has certainly been shown over the past few tumultuous weeks is that, like the old insurance advert, having the strength of the EU around us is certainly to be valued. It is right to pay tribute to President Sarkozy who, in this EU presidency, has shown great leadership that has been much to the benefit of all the members of the EU. I sometimes think that the Prime Minister would do well to remember the old Harry Truman dictum; not, "The buck stops here", although it certainly does, but, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit".
	Perhaps the noble Baroness can say whether the Government feel that there are any implications for Britain of being outside the eurozone deliberations. Is she not concerned that some of the key discussions and decisions made about Europe's position will be made with us sitting outside, waiting for those decisions to be arrived at? As for the rest of what was a very full economic Statement, responded to with a very full dissociation—we are back in the old ping-pong politics in this term—by the Conservative party, the best thing is for us to have a full debate in the House. I say to the Government that they should remember that we are the Liberal Democrats and we are here to help them.
	The summit was originally going to be on energy and climate change, although naturally the economic situation dominated. One thing crossed my mind on hearing what the Prime Minister said. I saw a photograph in one of the Sunday newspapers of a new wind turbine being built, with a man in white overalls working on the turbine. Underneath, the caption said, "Turbines for the British wind turbine industry being made in Germany". What initiatives do the Government have, particularly as we move into a recession, for creating green jobs for a green economy? That is one of the real opportunities that we have, which may have been neglected while eyes were on other things.
	On relations with Russia, I am a little worried whether sometimes the rhetoric about firmness with Russia and some of the other Cold War mark 2 stuff that we hear on the right of both British and American politics is really thought through. Of course, we must be firm with Russia, but we also must engage in a realistic dialogue with it. I hope that will be our role in terms of the Nice summit, rather than encouraging some eastern European countries to get into positions that are beyond their capabilities and beyond our capabilities. Did the discussion also relate to how to get China and India into these discussions? I share with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, an interest in whether there will be a real attempt to get the Doha round moving again, possibly with an initiative once it is clear who the new American president is going to be.
	Finally, what is meant by the EU right of entry not being unfettered? Have the Government something in mind about the movement of EU citizens in present circumstances? What underlies the whole Statement is the value to Britain of being at the heart of Europe, as the Prime Minister has, at long last, concluded, because it is in that dialogue with Europe and the United States—and with the emerging economies—that the real solution to the world's economic problems will be found. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reading books, I recommend the new biography of John Maynard Keynes, which is an excellent read.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support on the wider Statement and their welcome for the fact that such Statements are repeated in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, there is here a great deal of interest in these issues and concern about the future.
	I am also grateful for the support of both noble Lords for the economic measures that have been taken by the Prime Minister in this country, in the European Union and in the wider world. However, I refute one thing said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in relation to fixing the roof while the sun was shining. We did fix the roof when the sun was shining; we did invest in education; we did invest in training, in apprenticeships and new hospitals; we did create jobs. That will ensure that we are in a good position as we face the economic downturn.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the migration pact. I reassure him that it allows us to continue with our points-based system and to meet the future needs of this country.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised a point about the euro-zone. It was instructive to see the Prime Minister in Paris last weekend with the euro-zone heads of state and government. I would imagine that as the economic crisis unfolds there will be more and more situations in which the Prime Minister works with his colleagues in the euro-group.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the Lisbon treaty and the position of the Irish. I do not know if it will be possible to place a copy of Taoiseach's statement in the Library. I do not know whether it exists in writing. If it does, I will certainly put it in the Library. However, it is absolutely right that the heads of state and government should have briefly addressed this issue and they will come back to it with a deeper reflection when they meet in December.
	Both noble Lords were interested in the aspects of criminality and freedom of movement. The Prime Minister strongly feels that we need to ensure that the minority of people who abuse free movement to undertake serious criminal activity are prevented from doing so. That does not mean that we will cut down on freedom of movement; it means merely that we want to underline the importance of maintaining free movement rights for the majority of law-abiding EEA citizens, but we want to deal with citizens who abuse the trust of other citizens in the European Union.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke about EU supervision. He said that it was important that we in the UK should be able to supervise our own financial markets. I can assure the noble Lord that our proposals, for example, for supervisory colleges allow national accountability to remain. We want to ensure that there are better information flows between the different regulators, so that they can see the wider picture, but it is very important that our national accountability should remain.
	On Russia, the Council agreed that the time is not right for a decision on resuming talks on a new partnership agreement with Russia because we need to take the decision in the round, considering Russia's engagement in the Geneva talks and the findings of the EU-Russia audit. But we should not be signalling that Russian withdrawal from the security zone is all that is required of them. We shall look at this again in December when the EU-Russia summit has taken place.
	On climate change, delay is simply not an option. We recognise the challenge of implementing the package at EU-level. We are working very closely with the presidency to ensure that we show global leadership in the EU because it is very important to reach a resolution in December so that we can take the leadership in Copenhagen next December. That will not be easy and we shall be working with those Governments who have serious reservations about the issue at the moment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggested that there is a problem in my right honourable friend Ed Miliband seeking to reduce carbon while the Prime Minister is talking about the need to ensure that petrol prices go down. I do not think that there is a problem there at all. Fuel duty has been frozen this year, but we recognise, as we did with our European colleagues, that it is absolutely necessary to take action to reduce carbon emissions at UK, EU and international levels.
	We should look at the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the manufacturing of wind turbines, but the September 2008 manufacturing strategy announced how the Office for Nuclear Development will assist the development of the supply chain. Obviously, we have to consider that in the context of the renewable supply chain as well as the nuclear supply chain.
	I am delighted that both noble Lords recognise the importance of this country being at the heart of Europe. I am glad that all three parties, and Members all around the House, recognise that need.

Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government's public spending figures, published today, are the worst on record—in other words, the worst since 1946—and in view of the fact that our public borrowing is now the worst in western Europe, what success did the Prime Minister have with his colleagues in persuading them to go down the same path as him?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it is clear from all the discussions that took place before the Council and at the Council that the plan devised by the Prime Minister, with the Chancellor and other colleagues, to recapitalise banks and so on, to bring stability to the financial system, is now being followed in the European Union and around the world. Of course, we should also recognise that the problems in the financial sector and in the real economy are inextricably linked. We have to find a solution to the financial crisis so that we can ensure that the real economy thrives.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I believe the Minister agrees that the tone of all three statements from the Front Benches in this House are among the most positive that we have heard after a European Council for a very long time. That is to be welcomed. Long may it continue.
	The noble Baroness said quite a bit about climate change, which was entirely related to the negotiations taking place between the member states for the burden sharing within the European Union. Although that is necessary, do the Government recognise that by far the biggest problem on the road to a successful outcome at Copenhagen will be the negotiation on burden sharing between developed countries and developing countries? I did not hear anything in the Statement—perhaps the noble Baroness will say a word about this—about how the Government will address that, which, after all, will be the real conversation-stopper if it cannot be got right. Do we have any ideas on how that burden-sharing should be carried out; and, if so, what are they?
	Secondly, again, I welcome very much what the Government are saying about energy security, but, frankly, the European Union has been saying all those things for quite some time but has not yet done anything about them. Is not the moment coming when the credibility of the mantras that we endorse a liberalised energy market and more interconnection between member states to make us less vulnerable in emergencies, and that we are determined to diversify our external supply, will not be enough? We need very soon—in December, I hope—to come to some decisions to follow up the Government's warming attitude on the Nabucco pipeline, for example, by stating categorically that we will support some European funds being made available for that pipeline if it enables supply to be diversified sensibly. Perhaps the noble Baroness will answer on those two points.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, of course I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the positive response to the Statement from all sides of the House.
	On climate change, the noble Lord is again right to say that the important negotiations will be with our partners in developing countries. However, the stance taken in the European Union provides a valuable foundation for the talks which I am sure are now taking place, but which will be heightened between this December, when the European Union reaches its agreement, and next December, when we have the discussions in Copenhagen. We have to use that year very carefully to ensure that we reach agreement with our partners in developing countries.
	On energy security, I understand the noble Lord's disappointment about the position that the European Union has reached. However, that is something that the UK continually pushes. I think that he may be again disappointed in December because there will be no conclusions on energy security, but I understand that an action plan will be adopted to be in place for the spring European Council. I hope that we can move forward on that basis.
	I take this opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he again called for a debate on economic issues. That is under discussion between the usual channels and I am sure that a date will be forthcoming as soon as there is agreement.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have two questions. The first relates to how these Statements are handled. I say that because this has been a very complicated and long Statement, but when I went to the Printed Paper Office to get a copy of it, I found that a copy was not available because the Prime Minister had not sat down. Frankly, that is not good enough. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at the procedure to see whether we can ensure that, when the Statement is made in this House, it is made available to all Members so that they can properly read it and react.
	The second question relates to asylum and immigration policy. It is not quite clear to me—and, perhaps, to no one else—what it is all about. Over the weekend, we have had statements made, statements withdrawn and counterstatements about the Government's immigration policy. Today, we have a new Statement about an EU pact on asylum and immigration, which presumably will remove British control of our borders, immigration and asylum. Could that be explained, please?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, first, I shall deal with Statements and noble Lords' access to them. It is extremely difficult. The Prime Minister stood up to make his Statement at 3.30 pm. The Statement that I read out, as noble Lords may have noticed, is substantially different from the one that was issued about five minutes before, which said, "Check against delivery". I do not suggest that we in this House should follow everything that the Commons does, but no one in the Commons has the Statement until the Prime Minister has stood up. It is the same in this House. Of course we will try to ensure that the Statement is available in the Printed Paper Office as soon as the Prime Minister stands up.
	There has been absolutely no change in the Government's policy on asylum and immigration. We have recently introduced a points-based system, which is the policy of the Government. However, there is always active discussion of such an important policy, which sometimes carries on into the press.
	As I understand it, the migration pact, which was agreed at the European Council, in no way changes the United Kingdom's policy. We have a points-based system. That is the policy of this Government, and it has not changed over the weekend.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps I may interpret one or two of the phrases in the Statement. I note, for example, that Her Majesty's Government strongly support,
	"improved critical energy infrastructure ... in the southern corridor".
	I took that to mean that we were in favour of the Nabucco pipeline, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has already mentioned, or perhaps it means that we are half in favour of it but are not prepared to put any money into it. If we are pulling back from Nabucco, which is clearly an extremely important issue in Europe's long-term energy security, it would be helpful if we knew.
	Secondly, in the part of Statement that deals with the Financial Stability Forum, there was a reference to the need for openness and disclosure in international financial markets. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for a number of offshore financial centres that come under UK sovereignty, but so far it is extremely unclear how far those centres will be included in tighter regulations for openness and disclosure. I was struck when reading the Financial Times last week that British investors who had offshore accounts in Guernsey and the Isle of Man were asking to have their accounts guaranteed by the British Government in order to get back the money that they had lost in offshore accounts. As the purpose of investing in Guernsey and the Isle of Man was to avoid British taxation, that seemed a little rich. If this is part of what we need for openness and disclosure, is this part of the Government's agenda?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I confess that I am completely unequipped to respond to the noble Lord's question about Guernsey, the Isle of Man and offshore accounts. It is clearly a British issue. It could be a European issue, too, but I will write to him.
	We are not going back at all on the southern corridor for Caspian gas. I do not know what discussions took place on the financing of that corridor, but it was certainly on the agenda and the conclusions called for proposals that included the southern corridor for Caspian gas. Again, I will look into this and write to the noble Lord.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the forthcoming meeting called at the initiative of President Bush and President Sarkozy. Does she agree that, although multilateral action is absolutely essential if a conclusion is to be reached on some of the problems facing the world, there is nothing more dangerous than a very high-profile international meeting without a carefully prepared agenda and a good deal of agreement beforehand on what the conclusions will be? At first sight, a forthcoming meeting of this sort is a very unpromising scenario. The meeting with President Sarkozy and Senor Barroso was chaired by an American president who is unable to commit his country because the next meeting will take place after the presidential election.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others referred to the 1930s. The noble Baroness no doubt will recall that one of the more disastrous conferences that took place in the early 1930s was in Washington when there was exactly the problem that no one had prepared the conclusions beforehand.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord's assertion that the meeting between President Bush, President Sarkozy and Senor Barroso provided us with an unpromising scenario. I agree that such meetings have to be carefully prepared, but at a time of economic crisis, it is important that the discussions take place. I am sure that there was preparation for this meeting, but perhaps not as much as one would wish. I am also sure that there will be many other international meetings, including with the newly-elected President of the United States, and that those agendas and outcomes will be carefully prepared.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, it seems to me and, I think, to other noble Lords that a certain lack of integrity, honesty and candour, as well as incompetence in the financial services sector, has helped to get us into this problem. In the Statement, my noble friend spoke about greater regulation and greater transparency, and the need for change, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred. Is my noble friend satisfied that that is enough to change this culture? If it does not change, these problems will arise in another form, as they have in the past and will in the future.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: No, my Lords, words are never enough to change a culture. We have to ensure that actions follow words. I hope that creating the supervisory colleges of regulators will ensure proper supervision of the banking and financial system.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Government do not want to cut down on freedom of movement in the European Union. It is clear that a dangerously growing political problem for member states will be, as unemployment rises, the presence of large numbers of workers from other member states. Did the Council discuss that likely scenario at all or did it discuss only people committing criminal acts in other member states?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as I understand it, the discussion focused on the criminal aspect of freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is one of the four keystones of the European Union. But there will be further discussions between now and December when the Council will come back to the issue. In December, I hope that I will have more to report on this issue.

Planning Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 116.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 359A:
	Clause 116, page 60, line 13, leave out subsection (3)

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 359A is in a large group, in which I have a great number of amendments. If I lose my place, I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me. The juggling required for this sort of group is physical and it is not within the normal repertoire of politicians.
	Amendment No. 359A is an amendment to Clause 116(3), which provides that a development consent order,
	"may make provision relating to ... matters ancillary".
	However, in Clause 145 we learn that the development consent order may remove the requirement for consent by a "relevant body". Through this amendment I seek an assurance from the Government that this is not directed at operational consents. The Government will be aware of the concern of the Environment Agency, which has contacted me with regard to this provision. It has said that it would be unlikely to agree to transfer operational consents save in exceptional circumstances and that the urgent need to streamline the planning system for major infrastructure coupled with the complexities of the consents regime has meant that the Bill is unable to draw a clear distinction between those consents necessary to implement infrastructure projects and regulation of the subsequent operation of the infrastructure.
	Amendment No. 360 probes the extent of Clause 116(5) and registers some concerns about it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented that it was not aware of comparable legislative powers being given to anyone other than a Minister or to be exercisable other than by statutory instrument. As the committee points out, the Government are clear that the ability of the IPC to overwrite statutes is in fact at the heart of the Bill, and thus is perhaps not unrelated to Clause 101 on which we considered amendments last week and to which we might return.
	I am not entirely comforted by there being an order by statutory instrument which is not subject to parliamentary procedure. To what scrutiny is it likely to be subject? In the Commons the Committee was told that the only pieces of legislation that can be altered are those that the promoter includes in the application; that any Member will be able to scrutinise the model provisions and force a parliamentary debate on them, and that the IPC as the decision-maker, although sometimes the Secretary of State,
	"will only be able approve the application and make an order when that is in accordance with the relevant national policy statement".—[Official Report, Commons, Planning Bill Committee, 29/1/08; col. 488.]
	I have some difficulty in following all this. Paragraph 25 of the Government's response to the DPRR Committee says that the clause is very tightly worded so as to allow the amendment or exclusion of statutory provision only where it is "strictly necessary", but Clause 116(5)(b) does not use such words; rather it states "necessary or expedient". That is a very different position. I should be grateful for an explanation of this.
	Amendment No. 362 and the subsequent raft of amendments take us to Schedule 5 entitled:
	"Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development",
	I ask the Government to justify their inclusion. The first amendment concerns the provision to allow the IPC to provide for:
	"Charging tolls, fares and other charges".
	This is interesting and perhaps goes beyond what one might have expected the IPC to be able to do. Will it be able to provide for them in principle or regulate them? How will this operate? If the IPC gets into the realm of tolls, it will be going further than most readers of what has been going on would expect.
	All of these amendments seek to take out the relevant provisions. Amendment No. 363 relates to,
	"The operation and maintenance of a transport system".
	Is it really the IPC's job to become involved in operating and maintaining a transport system? Amendment No. 364 relates to,
	"Entering into an agreement for the provision of police services".
	We seem to be moving further and further away from planning. I can understand that some of the projects which are the subject of the Bill will be very sensitive in terms of security and might need special protection, but, again, this seems to take us a long way forward.
	Similarly, Amendment No. 365 relates to,
	"The creation of a harbour authority",
	and,
	"Changing the powers and duties of a harbour authority".
	Amendment No. 366 relates to,
	"The transfer of property, rights, liabilities or functions ... The transfer, leasing, suspension, discontinuance and revival of undertakings".
	This is not linked to anything. Transferring property, rights, liabilities and functions, is again extreme. I wonder why they are in there.
	Amendment No. 367 relates to,
	"The payment of contributions ... The payment of compensation".
	Amendment No. 368 relates to,
	"The alteration of borrowing limits".
	Having spent many hours in this Chamber arguing about central government control of matters such as borrowing limits, where it should not get involved, giving this away in a schedule to the Bill requires some explanation.
	Amendments Nos. 384 to 387 raise similar points in the main part of the Bill. Amendment No. 384 relates to ignoring the effect of a bridge or tunnel. I am not an engineer, but is it possible in this context for the IPC to be told that it must ignore the effect of a bridge or tunnel? Amendment No. 385 relates to highways and a toll regime. Amendment No. 386 relates to harbours. Clause 140(5) states that the provision may include, in particular, certain matters. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me what else might be included. Amendment No. 387 seeks to probe Clause 140(5)(b), which gives wide powers to a harbour authority.
	Perhaps the kind question—I am being a little scathing—is to ask whether this provision replicates existing legislation. I see lots of nods coming from the Government Front Bench so I have not disgraced myself entirely. We will have that on the record. If it were an entirely novel provision, it would require to be justified. I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Amendment No. 360A, to which my noble friends on the Front Bench have added their names, is in this group. If I may say so, the noble Baroness has expressed herself with unnecessary moderation on an issue that warrants much stronger words than she used. Clause 116(5)(a) and (b) say that,
	"An order granting development consent may ... apply, modify or exclude a statutory provision which relates to any matter for which provision may be made in the order",
	and,
	"make such amendments, repeals or revocations of statutory provisions of local application as appear to the decision-maker to be necessary or expedient",
	and so on.
	I find this horrifying. We are setting up a body, the IPC, that will be making an order, and somewhere in that order it is going to alter statutes. I cannot believe that that is what is intended. It is bad enough when we hear about Henry VIII clauses, where Ministers—who, after all, are accountable to Parliament—are empowered to alter statutes by order, orders having frequently to come before Parliament, but here there is nothing of the sort. No Minister is responsible and there is no parliamentary process; the IPC, when it makes its order granting consent, can actually change the effect of the existing law. I simply cannot believe that is right.
	It may be that I have misunderstood the language and the Minister will be able to explain that I have got it all wrong. I should be greatly relieved to be assured of that. As it stands, though, this wording appears to give the IPC the power to change the law. My amendment would take out the two sections about altering and amending the law so that they would not apply. As an alternative, it could be that if the order needed to change the law in order to have proper effect given to it, it should ask the Minister to introduce an order that would then come before Parliament, which could express its view on it. Simply to leave the commission with the power to change the law when it issues its consent order seems to be wholly unacceptable. This is the sort of matter about which Parliament needs to come in and say, "Look, this is contrary to the rule of law and we will not have it".

Lord Dixon-Smith: I support my noble friend in his amendment, to which we have added our names. The issue he has raised is a fundamental one, about which I am sure we would all have the gravest concern, as he does. I hope the Minister can give us some explanation that suggests that what we are reading is not what is intended. Unfortunately, whatever she may say in exculpation, my own view is that the wording in the Bill is the wording that we have to deal with. If that is the case, some revision here will be required. I hope that on reflection the Minister might find that it is possible to give us reassurance, and to say that the Government will reflect on that wording and possibly come up with some mechanism that ensures that the commission itself cannot at a stroke amend the wording of legislation, because that would not be proper.
	In this group of amendments I have also tabled a debate on whether Clause 117 should stand part. I do not intend to take the time of the Committee on that debate; it is a consequence of some earlier amendments of ours that we have not dealt with at the moment, and there is no point in dealing with them here.

The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 371A in my name is in this group of amendments but deals with a slightly different subject. I hope that the Committee will bear with me while we yet again go off at a tangent and lose the thread of a very important debate on Clause 116.
	My amendment relates to Clause 118 on compulsory purchase. As a result of Clause 118, there is a danger that the positive decision to acquire land compulsorily will be seen as a natural consequence of a positive decision in favour of a project on planning grounds. That is worrying because it is contrary to the existing position, where any impediment to the grant of planning permission will weigh against the likelihood of obtaining compulsory purchase powers but the availability of permission does not in itself justify the exercise of compulsory powers.
	While the Government cite the need for a more streamlined decision-making process for major projects of national importance, no justification has been advanced for treating the affected parties differently in respect of taking or otherwise affecting land. It is important that there is consistency in the treatment of those affected by potential dispossession.
	That brings me to my amendment, which seeks to delete subsection (2) of Clause 118. The clause deals with the purposes for which land may be compulsorily acquired, and appears to have been pulled together from various Acts, with particular reference to the nature of the projects involved. For these reasons, it is expressed very broadly and provides little guidance on the justification of the use of powers. It is on that guidance that I seek the Minister's help. It relies on the meaning of the word "required" in Clause 118(2)(a), which was used in the compulsory purchase powers provided in Section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, along with the requirement that the land should be "suitable". The reference to the compelling case in the public interest is a reference to the test applied by the High Court in considering challenges to the confirmation of CPOs. Again, it does not help to establish the justification for exercising specific powers relative to the project under consideration by the decision-maker.
	A further example of the vagueness of this provision is that there is no indication of the timescale over which the powers may be exercised. As the Minister will know, most similar powers have a life of three years, but hybrid Bills and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 may seek longer periods, which will be granted only if justified. The purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to seek more information from the Minister on how this part of Clause 118 will be implemented.

Lord Adonis: All these amendments relate to the range of issues that can be covered by an order granting development consent. Our principle of action in relation to them all is simple: the IPC should be able to make provision in development consent orders for all the matters required to develop a nationally significant infrastructure project.
	Clause 116 and Schedule 5 itemise a large number of such matters and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, went through quite a number. However, I can assure the Committee that they are all rooted in matters that are already available in current legislation on infrastructure development and which experience has shown are necessary for promoters to build the infrastructure for which consent is being given.
	The specific provisions have been drawn very closely from Schedule 1 to the Transport and Works Act 1992 and from the Harbours Act 1964, although all the other existing consent regimes have had an influence on the provisions of both Clause 116 and Schedule 5.
	Amendments Nos. 359A and 360 to 368 raise the issue of matters ancillary to development. The test of whether something is ancillary to a development depends on the functional relationship between that matter and the development. A certain amount of common sense needs to be applied to the question, but, in general terms, something will be "ancillary" if it is needed for a development to proceed in practical terms. As with existing Transport and Works Act orders, there should be flexibility for development consent orders to cover these matters and other particular issues relevant to an application. The key here is flexibility, without which the single consent regime will not work.
	I have a table which I can pass to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of all the matters itemised in Schedule 5 on page 162 of the Bill, a number of which the noble Baroness went through. They are closely modelled on existing provisions. I will write to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who takes a keen interest, and other Members of the Committee, with a whole list of the powers and show how they are drawn, but I shall run through a few to give a flavour of our approach.
	The first paragraph in Schedule 5—
	"The acquisition of land, compulsorily or by agreement"—
	is modelled closely on Schedule 1 to the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Schedule 2 to the Harbours Act 1964, because the compulsory acquisition of land is almost always required for the construction of a nationally important infrastructure project. Such orders are very common provisions in Transport and Works Act and Harbours Act orders. They have been used recently in the case of, for example, the River Tyne (Tunnels) Order 2005, the Network Rail (Thameslink 2000) Order 2006 and the London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order 2008.
	The second paragraph in Part 1 of Schedule 5—
	"The creation, suspension or extinguishment of, or interference with, interests in or rights over land (including rights of navigation over water), compulsorily or by agreement"—
	is again modelled closely on Schedule 1 to the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Schedule 2 to the Harbours Act 1964, because interference with rights over land is a common provision in Transport and Works Act and Harbours Act orders. The three examples that I gave in respect of the first matter—that is,
	"The acquisition of land, compulsorily or by agreement"—
	all apply in relation to the second.
	Paragraph 4 of the schedule—
	"Carrying out specified excavation, mining, quarrying or boring operations in a specified area"—
	is closely modelled on Section 5 of the Gas Act 1965, because it is a specific consent required from the Secretary of State where mining operations are planned in the vicinity of an underground gas storage facility. It would not make sense for promoters of nationally strategic important infrastructure projects to require this power from the Secretary of State when the relevant consideration can be handled by the IPC.
	I could go through the list. I hope that I have thereby satisfied the Committee that we are seeking to move to the IPC the power to give consents on matters ancillary to developments. It is closely modelled on the existing regime that applies in legislation governing consents in particular areas, of which the most important examples are the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964. However, I shall circulate the whole list to Members of the Committee. If they wish to engage in a dialogue with me about specific items in it before Report, I would be glad to do so.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: The Minister slid very quickly over the provisions that I quoted from Clause 116. I listened to what he said about the ancillary matters which are dealt with in the schedule, and I would be most grateful to have the letter. However, I am told very firmly that, in the Transport and Works Act, if there is any question of amending the law, which is what the two provisions really mean, an order will be laid before Parliament and subject to the negative resolution procedure. I suspect that that would be a much more acceptable approach in this case. If that is thought to be too time-consuming, why cannot we at least have a Minister taking responsibility for changing the law? Giving this power to the commission is a novelty. If the Minister can convince me that that has been put into previous legislation, I shall listen with interest to what he says, but he did not say so when he first replied.

Lord Adonis: I was dealing first with the issue of the ancillary matters for which consent can be given alongside a development consent order. The noble Lord is now anticipating the second part of this debate, which relates to the exercise by the IPC of legislative powers. These are distinctly differently issues. The first concerns the range of matters, as set out in Schedule 5, over which the IPC has power when granting consent on matters ancillary to a development consent order. The noble Lord raises the point that I now wish to come on to—that is, the ability for the IPC to exercise so-called legislative powers.
	These provisions are again modelled closely on the powers already available to the Secretary of State in making orders under Section 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 and are an essential part of the single consent regime. The issue is whether existing powers that reside with the Government should be available to the IPC. It might be worth taking a moment to reflect on why the 1992 Act and the Harbours Act 1964 contain the legislative provisions that we have incorporated into the Bill, before I come to the issue of safeguards, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has, quite rightly, raised.
	In the past, promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects have found that there are statutory provisions regulating existing infrastructure that they propose to upgrade or improve. In particular, railway infrastructure is frequently covered by one or more private Acts of Parliament, which gave the original promoters of the railway the ability to construct it in the first place. Often the provisions of the existing legislation are inconsistent with proposals to upgrade or improve infrastructure. For example, Network Rail might be under a statutory obligation to provide or maintain a certain infrastructure—for example, a bridge or a footway—that would be incompatible with the provisions to upgrade a railway.
	It is also commonly necessary when authorising railway projects under Transport and Works Act orders to apply certain provisions of public Acts with suitable modifications. This may be because the legislation in question would not otherwise apply to the projects, but it should desirably do so, or because its application needs to be adapted to give a sensible outcome. Most typically, this has arisen in the context of compulsory purchase and compensation provisions, but it has arisen in other contexts as well. It was with precisely this problem in mind that Parliament previously granted the Secretary of State the extensive powers in Section 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, including the ability to make an order that can,
	"apply, modify or exclude any statutory provision which relates to any matter as to which an order could be made",
	under that Act. The 1992 Act also permits the Secretary of State to make amendments, repeals and revocations of statutory provisions of local application as appear to him to be expedient in connection with an order.
	The Harbours Act mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, makes similar provisions in respect of local Acts in relation to harbour developments. Clause 116(5) is based on the wording in Section 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the similar provisions in the Harbours Act. As we have seen in Part 3, many types of project to which the 1992 and 1964 Acts apply will, in future, be classified as nationally significant infrastructure projects and, as such, will require development consent under the Bill. Clause 32(2) has specifically excluded the 1992 or 1964 Act orders from authorising development of those projects. That will prevent the use of orders under those Acts to amend legislation in relation to such projects.
	However, it is because we recognise precisely the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about the powers being exercised by an independent body that we have provided for a number of safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these essential powers are not used inappropriately or without proper scrutiny. First, and most basically, the only pieces of legislation that can be altered are those that the promoter includes in the application. The IPC will not be able to make orders on a subject other than those in the application.
	Secondly, the form of the draft order will be based on model provisions that will be set out for the Secretary of State by order under Clause 33. These are likely to be similar to the model provisions currently set out in the Transport and Works (Model Clauses for Railways and Tramways) Order 2006. Members of both Houses will be able to scrutinise those model provisions and force a parliamentary debate on them, providing the precise oversight that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, seeks to ensure applies.
	Thirdly, as the Committee will see from the provisions of Clause 116(8), this provision will prevent any development consent order containing provisions that make or modify by-laws or criminal offences. We do not believe that it would be appropriate for an independent body to make such orders.
	Fourthly, the decision-maker will be able to approve the application and make an order only when that is in accordance with the relevant national policy statement. Any provisions in a development consent order relating to existing legislation will be only those that are in line with government policy—policy for which the Government are fully accountable to both Houses.
	Fifthly, where the IPC intends to use the powers in Clause 116(5), it will be required first to send a copy of the draft order to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State thinks that the terms of the order would contravene Community law or any of the convention rights, he has a power in Clause 117 to direct or require the IPC to change the terms of the order to prevent such contravention.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has tabled an amendment that would delete the safeguard. I presume that it has been tabled as a consequential amendment to his Amendment No. 306A. I say to him that, for precisely the reasons that we have been discussing this afternoon, Clause 117 provides a crucial means by which the Secretary of State can exercise control against any possible misuses of legislative powers that could bring this country into conflict with our international obligations. In general terms, we believe that it is a vital step to ensure that there is thorough scrutiny of any use of legislative powers on any matter.
	After the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have had a chance to look more closely at the matters I have set out, and before Report, I should be happy to discuss the matter further with them. We believe that, subject to transferring the granting of development consent orders to the IPC, there are adequate safeguards. On the specific issue of the IPC's ability to take into account existing statutory provisions in making its decisions, oversight provisions already exist in respect of both the Secretary of State and Parliament where orders to this effect are being made.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I seek some clarification. On the authority and power being given to the Infrastructure Planning Commission, the Minister said that the fourth safeguard was the national policy statement. Therefore, the IPC operates under an authority granted it by the NPS. I draw the Minister's attention to Clause 101, which sets out the parameters of the decision-making of the panel and council. Subsection (3) states:
	"The Panel or Council must decide the application in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, except."
	Then, in subsection (7), the exception is,
	"if the Panel or Council is satisfied that the adverse impact of the proposed development would outweigh its benefits."
	It seems to me that what is being argued is that there is to be an exception to the national policy statement. Who determines the benefits or loses to the project or the community? We are given no suggestion about that in the legislation. However, it shows those of us who are concerned about the authority accruing to the Infrastructure Planning Commission that not only is it able to set aside certain orders, it can also set aside the national policy statement. Can the Minister give an undertaking to rethink that proposal as well?

Lord Adonis: It cannot set it aside. This is an issue that it must weigh. The whole purpose of the IPC is to weigh the balance of pros and cons of an application when one is made, but it must do so in accordance with national policy statements.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: An exception is stated explicitly in Clause 101(3). It is difficult to understand what the grounds for those exceptions are. I am simply asking for some clarification about the exception granted to the national policy statement and therefore to the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: The right reverend Prelate has raised an interesting matter, and I shall study what the Minister has said about it. However, I come back to subsection (5). The Minister did not seem to recognise that there is a difference between the earlier Acts that he quoted—where the Secretary of State has the power to amend, alter, modify and so on—and the Bill, under which this unelected body would have that power. To rely, as the Minister has done, on the earlier legislation is a grave mistake, because to does not say that. In those cases, the Secretary of State makes an order and, for some of them, under the Transport and Works Act 1992, he must then put an order before Parliament.
	I understand that the Government's purpose here is to accelerate the process, something that has been recognised on all sides of the Committee as desirable and, indeed, necessary. However, changing the law should not be a function of a body like the IPC. At least, it should not do so without the consent of the Minister; that should be part of the formal process. It is insufficient to say, "the Minister may scrutinise", or "Parliament may scrutinise". Parliament cannot do anything about it under the law. If Parliament had more powers—over the national planning statements, as I have argued previously—that might make a difference. Currently, however, this is all made by policy being promulgated. Scrutiny by itself, without any powers, is not enough.
	I hope that the Minister will look at this again, and assure him that we will come back to it on Report. Of course we shall study what he has said and the various precedents. At the moment, however, I am wholly unconvinced.

Lord Adonis: I accept that the noble Lord has concerns, but it seems to me that they in fact go to the whole basis on which the IPC has been established. These powers are in line with all its other powers. The safeguards that are in place we regard as very robust. They include a safeguard for the Secretary of State where the Secretary of State believes that the terms of any order would contravene community law or any of the convention rights. As I say, there is a scrutiny role for the House of Lords. So the noble Lord's points on decisions that would be made on these matters are no different from the fact that we would be transferring this power in respect of the development consent orders themselves. We can, of course, rehearse these issues on Report.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made some remarks on compulsory purchase orders. We have the ability to issue guidance on compulsory purchase orders. This will give greater detail on how the IPC will treat cases of compulsory purchase orders, which I took to be his concern.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for that response. The noble Lord has the power. Is he going to exercise it and, if so, when? Will he confirm that the basis of compulsory purchase law is now changing in the way that I said?

Lord Bridges: I have not hitherto taken part in this debate, but listening to the interesting exchanges between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, it seems that the noble Lord has a point. The status of the IPC has inadvertently been revealed. In this case, it is to be an agent of government. That was not my understanding of the original purpose of the IPC.

Lord Adonis: It is not the agent of government. It has to consider applications on their merits, subject to the national policy statements that are issued under this Act by the Secretary of State. The IPC then has to exercise its judgment on the matters before it in the way that any body set up by statute operating under guidance does.
	In response to the noble Earl, it is our intention to issue guidance, but I do not know when.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hesitate to intervene again. This has been a detailed and interesting discussion. I know the Minister is doing his best to be helpful, but in being helpful, he has read out a list of qualifications to a part of the Bill that is unqualified. I am aware of the impact on legislation of what is said in Parliament. We need to have some fairly serious discussions, which the Minister offered, before Report in order to try to find out what lies behind this. At the moment, I remain unconvinced that the position is sufficiently clear. Before the Bill departs this place, we need to be satisfied that it is sufficiently clear for there to be no misunderstanding.

The Earl of Caithness: I come back again because there is another point that the Minister has not answered. It is whether Clause 118 changes the presumption about compulsory purchase in the way that I suggested when I spoke to my amendment.

Lord Adonis: Not as far as I am aware, but I shall confirm that matter in correspondence with the noble Earl.

Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that we need to be perfectly clear about what lies behind all this. In a non-technical fashion, I am perfectly clear about what lies behind all this. I am grateful for the offer of the detailed explanation. I was going to ask for it, but the Minister offered it.
	I picked up a couple of things that he said. First, he spoke about Transport and Works Act orders. The word "orders" is important. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, forcefully spoke about the constitutional position. The Minister also said that the key is flexibility. What is flexibility if you are the Government is probably too loose when you are the Opposition. Flexibility is the problem as well as the key.
	I was not clear from the Minister's explanation of the ancillary matters whether the current inspectorate would say yes to the different ancillary matters that I went through fairly quickly. When he writes, it would be helpful if the Minister could cover that because if it is not a precise analogy, the Government's defence is that much weaker. The examples he gave were not ones that I challenged in any of my amendments, and I am not clear that energy and waste matters, for instance, would come within the Transport and Works Act provisions that he was talking about in the direct way that he was dealing with them. I think they are different matters.
	As regards the safeguards he mentioned, the waiving of a statutory provision would have to be in the initial application. However, if I may say so, in terms of what we are questioning here, so what? We could debate model provisions, but those would simply be models in line with a national policy statement. We spent some time considering whether national policy statements should be approved by Parliament. I shall, of course, read carefully what the Minister said, but I am not convinced that his argument is as strong as it might appear on first hearing it.
	I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke to Clause 116. My amendment was more extensive than his and I probably did not do it full justice, knowing how many amendments I had in this group. However, I blinked and blinked again when I read the paragraphs to which he referred, which was why I sought to delete them from the Bill. My probing amendment is a substantial probe in this case. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 360 and 360A not moved.]
	Clause 116 agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 361:
	Schedule 5, page 162, line 15, leave out paragraphs 8 and 9

Lord Dixon-Smith: The first two amendments in this group concern the status of green-belt land where it is affected by a development proposal under a national infrastructure project scheme. I understand that the Minister can give us assurances on this matter. If that is the case, there will be no need for us to take it further. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: I believe that the noble Lord seeks assurances from me on the development of green-belt land. I think that I am in a position to give him those assurances. Indeed, my speaking note says that there is not a cigarette paper between him and the Government on the overall aims. I hope that is always true of the detail.
	The term "green belt" relates to land that is designated as green-belt land in accordance with the 1938 green belt Act. Under that Act, local authorities were given powers to hold certain land surrounding London and other metropolitan areas on trust, and development of that land is subject to restrictions over and above those imposed by the Town and Country Planning Act. Where land is designated as green-belt land for the purposes of the 1938 Act, a separate consent is required from the Secretary of State to enable the land to be developed. It might be helpful if I refer to this as statutory green-belt land.
	There is a second category of land, which is land designated as green-belt land by a local authority in its local development plan. Such land is currently protected from development by both local and national planning policy, which prohibit inappropriate development in the green belt except in very special circumstances. This type of designated green belt is not the same as statutory green-belt land as designated under the 1938 Act. While the development of this designated green-belt land requires planning permission in the usual way, it does not also require a separate consent from the Secretary of State under the 1938 Act.
	The Planning Bill deals with both these types of land by means of the single consent regime. As noble Lords will see from Clause 32, the single consent regime means that promoters will make a single application to the IPC instead of separate applications under the 1938 Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. An order granting development consent could, depending on the circumstances, authorise the development of both statutory green-belt land and land designated as green belt in a local development plan. An order granting development consent in relation to green-belt land will therefore have a similar effect to a combination of a planning permission and a separate consent from the Secretary of State under the 1938 Act.
	However, I can assure the noble Lord that it is our intention that the commission and the Secretary of State will be required to adhere to the policies set out in any relevant national policy statement, particularly in relation to the protection of green-belt land, whether statutory or non-statutory, and to take into account such other factors as may be prescribed in all decisions on whether to grant consent for a development in the green belt.
	We intend that national policy statements will explicitly reflect existing policy on green belt as set out in PPG2, thereby requiring the IPC to reach a decision on the same basis as local planning authorities currently do on applications in the green belt. We also intend to make subsequent regulations that require the commission or the Secretary of State to take into account the purpose for which green-belt land is held when deciding whether to grant consent for NSIP development on green-belt land. In that way, the special status of green-belt land will be protected to the full extent that the noble Lord would wish to see.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister for that response, which removes our concerns. It was a probing amendment, and we have probed successfully. I intend to withdraw the amendment—

Lord Adonis: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, had an amendment in this group—

Lord Cobbold: Perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 406. It comes at the beginning of Chapter 2 of the Bill, which is entitled, "Other changes to existing planning regimes". Given this opportunity, I felt that it was important to raise an issue about which I feel strongly, which I have raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and with her predecessors on several occasions. I declare an interest in that I am a landowner in the green belt in Hertfordshire.
	I fully accept the five purposes of the green belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2, which are,
	"to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas ... prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another ... to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment ... to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and ... to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land".
	Those principles have been most effective and have preserved the countryside wherever they exist. One problem, however, is that they freeze all development in villages and hamlets that fall within a green belt; thus, except in very special circumstances, the natural evolution of those villages and hamlets is blocked. As I said on Second Reading, there are many small and medium-sized sites in green-belt locations where a modest, well-designed and appropriate development could be permitted without threatening the openness of the surrounding green belt. According to paragraph 1.4 of PPG2, openness is the most important attribute of the green belt.
	There will be differing views on what is appropriate development, and they will vary depending on the characteristics of the particular site. There is likely to be demand for affordable housing to enable the next generation of village dwellers to stay in the area; but appropriateness should not be limited to affordable housing. Some infilling and freestanding housing should not be ruled out provided that, as the amendment states, it is,
	"of a quality and design that preserves the character of the area".
	The amendment is designed to give a degree of flexibility to local planning authorities in aiding the natural evolution of villages and hamlets in the green belt, without compromising the five purposes of including land in green belt as set out in PPG2.

Lord Reay: I am not a landowner in the green belt, but I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who spoke convincingly on this subject at Second Reading, when he drew the picture of a blanket freeze on all development in villages and hamlets in the green belt, making it sound like a blight that they were suffering from. He provided quite a contrast to the experience of almost any other village in this country in the past 20 years. The amendment is cautious and the noble Lord surrounds the prospect of development with every sort of condition, and I would have thought that his amendment could be supported.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am sorry, but I was trying to discover where we were. The solution is that the Chamber did not give my noble friend leave to withdraw his amendment, which we are still discussing. I wish to comment on the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. As Secretary of State, I was heavily involved with this issue and I published proposals for planning authorities, when drawing the boundaries of green belts around small towns and villages, to leave enough space for the kind of natural development to which the noble Lord referred. I was immediately howled down by all the environmental interests: they said that I was proposing to cover the green belt in concrete. That was complete nonsense, although the matter is of course sensitive.
	However, I am sure that I was right and it is wrong to draw a line that follows the existing houses all the way around a village and to state that everything outside it is the green belt, subject to all the extra restrictions. That is nonsense and I hope that the Government will recognise, in continuing to administer green belt policy, that natural development should be allowed. My chief official used to say that the man who gets the last house at the end of the road at the edge of the green belt becomes the secretary of the local conservation society.

Lord Adonis: The Government share the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Cobbold and Lord Reay, that communities should be able to evolve over time for precisely the reasons also set out by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. However, we are in no doubt that the existing controls set out in PPG2 already provide robust protection to the green belt and local flexibility to enable proportionate development in villages. PPG2 places a presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt, which has played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in preventing urban sprawl and encroachment on the countryside.
	However, PPG2 does not preclude all development in the green belt and specifically recognises the need for some development in villages. I would draw the Committee's attention to the policy—

Lord Cobbold: Local planning authorities simply do not accept any possibility of development in these areas.

Lord Adonis: They may say that, but the policy, under paragraph 2.11 of PPG2, enables local planning authorities, through their development plans, to set out policies allowing infill development if such development would not have an adverse effect on the character of the village concerned. That precisely meets the point made by the noble Lord. Of course, we cannot substitute our judgment for the judgment of local planning authorities in this matter, but PPG2 does provide precisely the flexibility that the noble Lords, Lord Reay, Lord Cobbold and Lord Jenkin, sought. Therefore, existing planning policy guidance meets their concerns.
	Furthermore, to help meet the specific needs of local communities for affordable housing, local planning authorities may set out a rural exception site policy in their development plan. Such a policy enables the authority to release small sites which would otherwise not be released for housing, within and adjoining existing small rural communities in the green belt, to provide affordable housing to meet local needs in perpetuity. So the person who buys the last house in the village and becomes secretary of the local conservation society might be in for a rude shock.

Lord Cobbold: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I know what is in the box of existing villages in PPG2—it is very out of date; this issue needs to be restated and the Bill is an ideal opportunity for that.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for forgetting that he had an amendment in this group. It is a significant group and the Minister has dealt with it as best he can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 362 to 368 not moved.]
	Schedule 5 agreed to.
	Clause 117 [Exercise of powers in relation to legislation]:
	[Amendments Nos. 369 to 371 not moved.]
	Clause 117 agreed to.
	Clause 118 [Purpose for which compulsory acquisition may be authorised]:
	[Amendment No. 371A not moved.]
	Clause 118 agreed to.
	Clause 119 agreed to.
	Clause 120 [Guidance about authorisation of compulsory acquisition]:
	[Amendment No. 372 not moved.]
	Clause 120 agreed to.
	Clause 121 [Application of compulsory acquisition procedure provisions]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 373:
	Clause 121, page 62, line 29, at end insert—
	"(aa) section 10 (compensation for injurious affection);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 122 agreed to.
	Clause 123 [Statutory undertakers' land]:
	[Amendment No. 374 not moved.]
	Clause 123 agreed to.
	Clause 124 [Local authority land and statutory undertakers' land: general]:

Lord Colwyn: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 374A:
	Clause 124, page 64, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) An order granting development consent may include provision authorising an electric line to be kept installed above ground only if the decision-maker is satisfied that no person will be exposed to any risk to their health arising from exposure to electric and magnetic fields with a frequency of between 30 to 300 Hertz."

Lord Colwyn: I do not think that this amendment, on the hazards of exposure to magnetic fields, has been debated. As everything that can be said about the matter has been said, I do not intend to move the amendment. However, I am grateful for the Minister's assurances that she will keep an eye on what is going on.

[Amendment No. 374A not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 375:
	Clause 124, page 64, line 40, leave out "an application for an" and insert "the application for the"

Lord Adonis: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 376 and reply to the other amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. With the leave of the Committee, I shall first speak briefly to my amendments and then reply to the others after the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has spoken to them. It may be as well if I reply to him rather than seek to pre-empt what he has to say.
	Amendments Nos. 375 and 376 are technical drafting amendments. Clauses 124 and 126 deal with applications for development consent orders which would involve compulsory acquisition of land or rights over land owned by local authorities or statutory undertakers or by the National Trust. In both cases we want the relevant local authority or statutory undertaker or the National Trust to be able to make representations against the relevant application. However, the current wording of the clause allows for representations about any application. These amendments remove confusion about which application is being referred to. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I tabled Amendments Nos. 379 and 382 and have given notice of our intention to oppose the Question that Clauses 127 and 128 should stand part. Most of this is about commons. Some of us remember fondly the passage of the Commons Act 2006 through this House. It seems that ever since then we have had one Bill or another each Session in which the issue of commons bubbles up. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to the commons corner and to the technicalities of what is often seen as a side issue, though it is quite important.
	Amendments Nos. 379 and 382 were originally tabled as holding amendments so that we had something on these clauses in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 382 is about rights of way. My purpose—it may well be a technical issue that can be answered afterwards in writing—is to find out what difference this clause and the Bill will make to the procedures on non-vehicular rights of way as regards extinguishment, diversion and so on. How will this work under the new system compared with how it works under compulsory purchase orders at the moment? I am not talking about normal procedures but about compulsory purchase orders under existing legislation. How will this change it, if at all?
	The rest of the points refer to commons. Clause 126 concerns compulsory purchase orders for existing commons or for replacement land where an existing common is to be compulsorily purchased and used for something else. Clause 127 is a very similar provision about the compulsory purchase of rights over commons. Of course, the ownership of a common and the people who have commoners' rights and other rights on the common are two separate and different things. I want to probe the relationship between the two and the changes from the provisions in the Commons Act 2006 and in previous commons legislation—Section 9 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and, most recently, the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. Your Lordships' House last discussed commons during passage of the latter legislation.
	There are three broad issues. The first is how Clauses 126 and 127 vary, if at all, from the existing provisions in Section 9 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. I have had a good look at this legislation and can find only one variation, though there may be others; it concerns the Secretary of State's decision on whether to order a public inquiry into a proposal to compulsorily purchase a common. Section 9 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to consider any representations made before deciding whether to have a public inquiry. That provision seems to have been missed out of this Bill. I would like to know whether that is so, and, if so, why it is. It is a small point, but it is a safeguard.
	The then Housing and Regeneration Bill had very similar provisions on the compulsory purchase of commons—in that case, by the Homes and Communities Agency, which may be the other major national organisation that the Government are setting up with new planning powers. Why are there differences between the way in which the Housing and Regeneration Act, particularly in Section 9 and Schedule 2, deals with the compulsory purchase of commons and the way in which it is being done in this legislation?
	The Housing and Regeneration Act provisions seem easier to read, simpler and more elegant. Perhaps we have had two lots of parliamentary draftsmen inventing the wheel together and coming up with different shaped wheels. It is not clear to me why, in two Bills that have gone through Parliament so closely together and everyone accepts are very closely linked in how development, regeneration and planning powers are to be used, we have two different ways of setting out the proposals.
	There is a second broad issue which we also raised when discussing the Housing and Regeneration Act, when the Government came up with a satisfactory solution as the legislation went through your Lordships' House. We have to tackle the same issue here—that the provisions for the acquisition of commons by people carrying out development appear to apply only to acquisition by compulsory purchase, not to acquisition by agreement. As I said, the issue was resolved satisfactorily during passage of the Housing and Regeneration Act though it seems to need to be resolved again here. Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing and Regeneration Act contains the provisions included as a result of representations raised here.
	One problem is the question of how replacement land or rights—either land or rights over land that the developers already possess—are to be provided if a common is acquired by agreement rather than compulsion. How it should happen if there is a CPO is all set out in the Act: as a condition of that CPO, replacement land or replacement rights must be there. If the land is acquired by agreement, they do not have to be. That is the fundamental issue that needs sorting out.
	If land has been developed that has not gone through the proper procedure of registration and replacement land being provided, that land may remain as a common and people who are occupying that land for whatever purpose may find that those common rights still exist and have not been removed. There does not seem to be a procedure in the Bill for adequately removing them.
	The third broad issue is concern whether, if a developer acquires land by CPO, the existing safeguards and protections for commons will remain, or whether a developer simply owns a common. If a common forms part of an area of land with development consent and has not gone through the procedure to deregister as a common, do the existing safeguards and protections for that common in the Commons Acts remain?
	In a sense, this is a pale shadow of the debate that took place on Clauses 116 and 117. Clause 116 covered what may be included in the order granting development consent by the IPC. Schedule 5, with which my noble friend dealt, listed lots of things that can happen. In the case of commons, can the provision in Clause 116 and Schedule 5 sweep away all the protections for that land under the Commons Acts—for example, the protections that exist under Part 3 of the Commons Act 2006, which prohibits works on commons without consent and sets out the procedure for getting that consent? Having listened to that debate, I suspect that the answer is: yes it can and yes it may. If that is the case and that is how it is going to work, that sweeps away protection for commons that has existed since the Law of Property Act 1925. If it is possible to carry out development on a common without providing alternative common land or alternative rights on land that may be owned otherwise, that is a serious setback to the protection of commons in this country.
	I apologise to the Committee for detaining it on what might seem detailed and technical matters—because commons are detailed and technical matters—but they are important. Only two years ago, in the Commons Act, Parliament forcefully and vigorously established a new regime on commons and clearly stated that commons had to continue to be protected. It would be unfortunate if the Bill were to sweep away some of those protections.
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. He may not have the technical detailed information there to reply to everything that I have raised; if not, I look forward to correspondence, and perhaps discussion, before Report.

Lord Adonis: As the noble Lord said, restrictions are already in statute to prevent the compulsory acquisition of certain types of land. In the case of common land, open spaces or allotments, which are specifically raised by the amendments, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 already specifies that such land—above a de minimisthreshold—can be compulsorily acquired only through special parliamentary procedure, unless the promoter proposes replacement land which the Secretary of State certifies as being equally advantageous to the users.
	Amendment No. 379 requires some additional wording to be added to that test. I assure the noble Lord that all the evidence suggests that the test already works well at present. Clause 127(6) already requires the Secretary of State to notify interested persons before issuing a certificate and to invite representations. That allows interested persons to comment specifically on how advantageous the proposed replacement land would be to them. When assessing whether the replacement land is "no less advantageous", one relevant consideration will be the location of the land. The further away the replacement land is from the common land in question, the less advantageous it is likely to be. The meaning of "no less advantageous" therefore already allows consideration of the location of the proposed replacement land.
	Amendment No. 381 probes the test of whether replacement land will be "adequate" to compensate commoners and the public when a right over common land, open space or an allotment is compulsorily acquired. Again, in the clause we have replicated the existing test from the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which has worked well and is commonly understood by practitioners.
	Amendment No. 382 refers to cases where a development consent order extinguishes a public right of way. Clause 132 replicates the provisions of Sections 251 and 258 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which provide that that can be done only if the decision-maker is satisfied that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided, or that an alternative right of way is not needed.
	The noble Lord asks for assurance that this would mean an alternative right of way that is no less advantageous to the existing users of that right of way. We do not disagree with his general point—we would expect that the IPC would ensure that any alternative right of way would provide that, based on the evidence submitted to it and the contents of the NPS. However, his specific suggested wording could lead to confusion, as it would be difficult for any diversion to a public right of way to be "no less advantageous" than the original one. We prefer to leave it to the IPC to decide on individual cases in the light of the evidence submitted to it and the guidance given in the NPS on the Government's policy on rights of way.
	The noble Lord also raised the issue of transfer of common land by agreement. We do not think that this will be especially relevant to the Bill. We expect that where a promoter of an NSIP wants to acquire common land, whether by agreement or otherwise, it would be deregistered as commons. There are already powers in paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 for the IPC to make provision for the suspension or extinguishment of or interference with rights over land. Where a promoter applies for the compulsory acquisition of common land, we expect the deregistration of commons to be an automatic part of the development consent order. Likewise, where the promoter has already acquired common land by agreement, we expect it to apply for the deregistration of commons as part of the application for a development consent order.
	The noble Lord also made a number of points about the Housing and Regeneration Act.

Lord Greaves: To return to the point about deregistration, where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, the Bill makes provision for replacement common land and replacement common rights. Where land is either owned already or acquired by agreement, there is no provision for replacement land or replacement rights. That lack of provision is an omission in the Bill. It was an omission in the Housing and Regeneration Bill, but the Government put it right in that Bill.

Lord Adonis: I will look at the issue further and return to the noble Lord. I will also return to him on his points about the Housing and Regeneration Act. I confess that I am not briefed on those specific points. He is a great deal more knowledgeable about them than I am, and I wish to be equally knowledgeable before I reply to him.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 124, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 125 agreed to.
	Clause 126 [National Trust land]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 376:
	Clause 126, page 65, line 41, leave out "an application for an" and insert "the application for the"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 377 not moved.]
	Clause 127 [Commons, open spaces etc: compulsory acquisition of land]:
	[Amendments Nos. 378 and 379 not moved.]
	Clause 127 agreed to.
	Clause 128 [Commons, open spaces etc: compulsory acquisition of rights over land]:
	[Amendments Nos. 380 and 381 not moved.]
	Clause 128 agreed to.
	Clauses 129 to 131 agreed to.
	Clause 132 [Public rights of way]:
	[Amendments Nos. 382 and 383 not moved.]
	Clause 132 agreed to.
	Clauses 133 to 137 agreed to.
	Clause 138 [Diversion of watercourses]:
	[Amendment No. 384 not moved.]
	Clause 138 agreed to.
	Clause 139 [Highways]:
	[Amendment No. 385 not moved.]
	Clause 139 agreed to.
	Clause 140 [Harbours]:
	[Amendments Nos. 386 and 387 not moved.]
	Clause 140 agreed to.
	Clause 141 agreed to.
	Clause 142 [Development of Green Belt land]:
	[Amendments Nos. 388 and 389 not moved.]
	Clause 142 agreed to.
	Clauses 143 to 145 agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 389A to 389B:
	After Clause 145, insert the following new Clause—
	"Liability under existing regimes
	An order granting development consent may not include provision the effect of which is to exclude or modify the application of—(a) any provision of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965;(b) section 28 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Reservoirs Act 1975 (liability for damage and injury due to escape of water from a reservoir constructed after 1930);(c) section 209 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (civil liability of water undertakers for escapes of water from pipes); (d) section 48A of the Water Resources Act 1991 (civil remedies for loss or damage due to water abstraction)."
	After Clause 145, insert the following new Clause—
	"Compensation in case where no right to claim in nuisance
	(1) This section applies if, by virtue of section (Nuisance: statutory authority) or an order granting development consent, there is a defence of statutory authority in civil or criminal proceedings for nuisance in respect of any authorised works.
	(2) "Authorised works" are—
	(a) development for which consent is granted by an order granting development consent;(b) anything else authorised by an order granting development consent.
	(3) A person by whom or on whose behalf any authorised works are carried out must pay compensation to any person whose land is injuriously affected by the carrying out of the works.
	(4) A dispute as to whether compensation under subsection (3) is payable, or as to the amount of the compensation, must be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
	(5) Subsection (2) of section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (limitation on compensation) applies to subsection (3) of this section as it applies to that section.
	(6) Any rule or principle applied to the construction of section 10 of that Act must be applied to the construction of subsection (3) of this section (with any necessary modifications).
	(7) Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (compensation for depreciation of land value by physical factors caused by use of public works) applies in relation to authorised works as if—
	(a) references in that Part to any public works were to any authorised works;(b) references in that Part to the responsible authority were to the person for whose benefit the order granting development consent has effect for the time being;(c) sections 1(6) and 17 were omitted.
	(8) An order granting development consent may not include provision the effect of which is to remove or modify the application of any of subsections (1) to (7)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 146 agreed to.
	Schedule 6 [Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent]:
	[Amendment No. 390 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 391 to 393:
	Schedule 6, page 165, line 5, at end insert—
	"This is subject to sub-paragraphs (8A) to (8C).
	(8A) If the development consent order was required to be contained in a statutory instrument, the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) may be exercised only by order contained in a statutory instrument.
	(8B) If the instrument containing the order is made by the Commission, the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applies in relation to the instrument as if it had been made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(8C) As soon as practicable after the instrument is made, the appropriate authority must deposit a copy of it in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments."
	Schedule 6, page 165, line 12, at end insert ", or, if the change to the order is required to be made by order contained in a statutory instrument, the date specified in the order making the change"
	Schedule 6, page 167, line 3, at end insert—
	"(7) If a development consent order was required to be contained in a statutory instrument, an order changing or revoking the development consent order made in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1) must also be contained in a statutory instrument.
	(8) If the instrument containing the order is made by the Commission, the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applies in relation to the instrument as if it had been made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(9) As soon as practicable after the instrument is made, the appropriate authority must deposit a copy of it in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 147 and 148 agreed to.
	Clause 149 [Benefit of development consent order]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 394:
	Clause 149, page 78, line 17, leave out subsection (4)
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 150 agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 394A:
	After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
	"Nuisance: statutory authority
	(1) This subsection confers statutory authority for—
	(a) carrying out development for which consent is granted by an order granting development consent;(b) doing anything else authorised by an order granting development consent.
	(2) Statutory authority under subsection (1) is conferred only for the purpose of providing a defence in civil or criminal proceedings for nuisance.
	(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to any contrary provision made in any particular case by an order granting development consent."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 151 [Legal challenges relating to nuisance etc.]:
	[Amendment No. 394B not moved.]
	Clause 151 negatived.
	Clause 152 agreed to.
	Clause 153 [Development without development consent]:
	[Amendment No. 395 not moved.]
	Clause 153 agreed to.
	Clause 154 [Breach of terms of order granting development consent]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 396:
	Clause 154, page 79, line 16, after "of" insert "or not fully in accordance with"

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 396 related to a short point that turned into two short points after an exchange with the Minister this morning. It takes us to Clause 154 in Part 8 on enforcement, and proposes that it would be an offence if, without reasonable excuse, a person carried out a development that was,
	"not fully in accordance with",
	the development consent order. It seeks to probe what happens if the development as constructed is not precisely in accordance with the order. It comes after many years of experience—which I know will be shared around the Committee—of much smaller developments than those with which we are concerned. The departure from planning permission could be, for example, a new house that is a little higher than the plans had indicated. I seek to understand the extent of that.
	The Minister asked me whether I was concerned about the project being left unfinished, which is a very good point and I am grateful to her for putting it in my mind. I look forward to hearing the position on that. I beg to move.

Earl Cathcart: Amendments Nos. 397 and 398 concern the right to enter land without a warrant under Clause 156. They were moved in Committee in another place. Clause 156(1) states that there is a right to enter land without a warrant if the,
	"local planning authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 153 or 154 is being, or has been, committed on or in respect of the land".
	Subsection (2) states that the planning authority may authorise the entering of land without any notice. Subsection (3) states that a person may enter a "dwelling-house", but,
	"only if 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the building".
	Our two amendments would take out subsection (3) and the 24 hours' notice for entering a "dwelling-house" and would apply it to the entering of any land. The issue does not simply apply to land and houses. There are lots of other types of buildings, such as factories, warehouses and offices, in between. The 24 hours' notice should apply before one enters any land.
	Before the Summer Recess, there was a debate on the types and numbers of rights of entry by government bodies—I recall something like 600 types. For my part, last year, my farm land was inspected about five times by various government bodies. Each time, I was notified of an inspection. Luckily, I ticked all the boxes. But my point is that it was much appreciated that they gave me 24 hours' notice. If local planning authorities want to enter land or property, it would be good a thing for them to give 24 hours' notice.
	That brings me to a number of other points. Our amendments concern proportionality in respect of rights of entry. The Bill allows entry without a warrant into a dwelling only if 24 hours' notice has been given. That is not a lengthy period, especially if the occupier is away. Clause 158 deals with compensation if damage is caused to land or chattels. Presumably, a local authority is allowed to break and enter, which seems to be rather a sledgehammer to crack a nut in most instances.
	There is a safety net under Clause 158(2), which states:
	"A person commits an offence if the person wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of a relevant right of entry".
	One has to question whether the entering of dwelling houses is compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; that is, the,
	"right to respect for family and private life".
	That is certainly debateable.
	Would it be disproportionately onerous for the authorities to obtain a warrant in advance for entering houses? After all, Clause 157, "Right to enter under warrant", refers to the,
	"reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 153 or 154 is being, or has been, committed".
	That is the very thing that Clause 156 deals with.
	In Committee in another place, the Minister said:
	"The clause is about enforcement ... It gives the local planning authority the element of surprise".—[Official Report, Commons Public Bill Committee, 29/1/08; col. 513.]
	I might be splitting hairs, but the right to entry is not about enforcement per se, it is about obtaining entry to ascertain the facts. Has an offence been committed as regards the planning permission or not? It is a fact-finding operation. Enforcement will take place only once it has been ascertained that an offence has been committed, if it has.
	Why does the local planning authority need an element of surprise? A development without planning permission or in breach of planning permission under Clauses 153 and 154 is not easy to disguise. I shall half-answer that myself. There may be instances where an element of surprise is necessary to obtain drawings and documents before they are removed. But, presumably, a warrant under Clause 157 will be used for that.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Amendment No. 396A, in my name, would make sure that there is an effective time limit for the new criminal offences introduced by the Bill. Clause 155 places a four-year time limit on bringing charges for committing the new offences of carrying out development without consent or breaching the terms of an order which was granted consent. However, the clause also states that a person could be charged with one of the offences after the expiry of that four-year limit if the local planning authority has applied for an injunction under Clause 164 or if the local planning authority has served an information notice on a person under Clause 160. It is that aspect which gives rise to the problem to which I would like to draw attention.
	The information notice would require the person to provide information about any operations they are undertaking to enable the authority to determine whether one of the new criminal offences has been committed. Whether or not the information process is proceeding, the threat of a criminal offence will continue to hang over that person. A local authority which, for example, is strongly opposed to the development of a major infrastructure project could use these powers to pursue the developer or operator over a considerably longer period than the statutory four-year limit. It must be quite rare in a major development not to be able to find some infringement at some time during the development project.
	The result is that the four-year time limit could mean that a person is served with an information notice or an injunction shortly before the expiry of the four-year time limit and could be faced with all the uncertainty of the threat of legal proceedings under one of the new criminal proceedings, which could continue indefinitely. There is no limit on the length of time that that could hang over the developer's head. The continuing uncertainty facing a person in that position cannot have been intended. Perhaps this is a consequence of the drafting of the Bill which may not have been anticipated.
	In my view, the enforcement provisions in respect of development consent orders should more closely follow the enforcement provision which is already set out in Section 171B of the 1990 Act. Ministers ought to look at this point before we reach the Report stage. I hope that I will get a sympathetic reply.

Lord Patel of Bradford: Three specific issues have been raised in relation to the new enforcement regime established under Part 8. I shall speak, first, to Amendment No. 396 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which seeks to amend Clause 154. Before I do that, however, it may be helpful if I provide a little information on the nature of IPC consents and the two offences provided for in Clauses 153 and 154.
	An order granting development consent will provide all the necessary consents needed to construct a nationally significant infrastructure project. As well as giving consent for the main development, the IPC can also make provision for ancillary matters, such as an electricity line to connect a generating station to the grid, or grant consent for associated development connected to the project, such as an access road. As part of this, the IPC can place conditions on the promoter, such as requirements that might mitigate the negative impacts of a project. To ensure that development on a nationally significant infrastructure project does not take place before an order is granted, Clause 153 makes the carrying out of such works without consent an automatic offence. We believe, as I am sure do noble Lords, that it is important that such projects should come about only after a promoter has made full disclosure of his plans and that these have been tested for their compatibility with national policy and with legal and environmental requirements. To ensure that promoters work within the terms of an order, Clause 154 makes it an offence to breach those terms without reasonable excuse.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether under Clause 154 a development built not in precise accordance with the terms of an order granting development consent would constitute an offence. I think I can reassure her on this matter, and on her other point about what would happen if a project is only half-built. Essentially, it is a matter of proportionality. Part 8 establishes an enforcement regime that allows a relevant local authority, where it suspects an offence under Clauses 153 or 154, to take steps to determine whether there is substance to that suspicion. This might be under Clause 160, where the local authority can require information by serving an "information notice", or by authorising a person under Clauses 156 or 157 to enter the land in question, both issues that are subject to the other amendments tabled by Members on the Benches opposite.
	Where a breach of the terms of an order granting development consent is identified, we would expect the local authority to discuss this with the promoter and agree what steps should be taken to remedy the breach. Local authorities are not unused to enforcement and we are confident that when investigating possible offences under the Bill, they will continue to use good common sense.
	Where a promoter fails to take steps requested by a local authority, or perhaps if the breach is serious enough, the relevant local authority might decide to issue formal legal proceedings against the promoter under Clause 154. In either case, the local authority would need to have sufficient evidence that an offence had been committed before bringing a prosecution. In addition, Clause 154 provides that a person commits an offence only where they have failed to comply with an order granting development consent without "reasonable excuse". The offence is not one of strict liability and a prosecuting authority would be mindful of this before commencing proceedings. As a consequence, I would not expect a promoter to be found guilty of an offence for a minor or accidental breach except where they had failed to rectify that breach. I would also expect promoters of such large-scale projects to be fully reputable, and no doubt they will take the terms of an order extremely seriously.
	Amendment No. 396 might also have an unintended consequence, as adding the words "fully in accordance with" could be interpreted to mean that partial completion of a project would amount to an offence under Clause 154. My noble friend Lady Andrews raised this matter with the noble Baroness earlier today, and she thought it would be a good idea to explain for the record the position for half-completed projects, perhaps because of a lack of finance. I am happy to oblige.
	I should stress that these are major undertakings that require considerable planning and funding. I would certainly expect the IPC to consider whether the necessary finance was in place before proceeding with an order to grant development consent. I would be surprised if any promoter decided to abandon a project after investing the amount of capital that would be required. In the unlikely event that a promoter could not complete a project, we would expect an agreement to be reached with the relevant local authority by agreeing, for example, to construct only part of the project, such as one section of a proposed new railway line, or to construct a smaller gas storage facility. This might need to be supplemented by an application to the IPC under the provisions in Schedule 6 to modify the original order granting development consent, and possibly by a separate consent from the local planning authority where the resulting development did not meet the thresholds for an NSIP.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 396A tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. The amendment seeks to remove one of the mechanisms by which a local authority can extend the period in which enforcement can be brought against a promoter. As I have just set out, local authorities have powers to require information under Clause 160 and to investigate land under Clauses 156 and 157 where they suspect that an offence may have been committed under Clauses 153 or 154. A local authority can also apply to the High Court or county court for an injunction under Clause 164 where it feels that activity is taking place which constitutes an offence under the aforementioned clauses. These powers provide local authorities with the tools necessary to investigate and restrain any unauthorised development.
	In general, we believe that four years provides the necessary time to exercise proper oversight of any development authorised by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. However, this period sets out when legal proceedings can be brought against a promoter. As such, we need to cater for when an offence, or potential offence, has been identified towards the end of this period. In such a scenario, it would not be proportionate or cost-effective to require a local authority to bring immediate legal proceedings. For instance, a local authority might have insufficient evidence collected at that point, in which case it would be left with the difficult choice of bringing expensive legal proceedings or losing the ability to do so altogether. Such a cut-off point would also remove any chance of discussions between the local authority and the promoter, and would make recourse to the courts an option of first rather than last resort. It is for this reason that we have provided local authorities with the ability to extend this initial four-year period by either seeking an injunction or serving an information notice.
	Noble Lords are seeking to remove the latter of these, and I would urge them to reconsider. What would a local authority do if prohibited development has already taken place and is noticed only towards the end of the initial four-year period? Without the ability to collect further evidence via an information notice, and thus provide additional time to investigate, the local authority would again be left with the same difficult choice we are seeking to avoid; that is, whether to bring expensive legal proceedings either for an injunction or for an offence under Clause 153 or 154 without all the evidence, or lose the ability to prosecute altogether.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Can the noble Lord respond to the important point that if the period is extended, it is without limit? There will be no time limit on when proceedings can be brought. I cannot believe that that is what is intended. I apologise for coming back to an earlier point, but I did ask that Ministers might look at this again and see whether that really is what they intend.

Lord Patel of Bradford: The issue of time limits was debated in the other place, and following concerns raised by Robert Neill MP, the Government agreed that it would be not be right for local authorities to be able continually to extend the period in which legal proceedings could be brought and so keep the threat of enforcement hanging over a promoter. The Bill has been amended to preclude this, but the noble Lord makes an important point that we need to be really clear: the period must not act as a hangover. Without making any promises, it would be helpful if he would allow me to re-examine the issue.
	Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 397 and 398 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. Clause 156 gives a relevant local planning authority the power to authorise a person to enter land if it has reasonable grounds to suspect an offence is being, or has been, committed under Clauses 153 or 154. The amendments would restrict the ability of local authorities to investigate potential offences. Where a local planning authority wishes to enter land without a warrant, it would need to give 24 hours' notice in all cases. At the moment, Clause 156(3) ensures that 24 hours notice of entry must be given to the occupier only when the property to be entered is a building used as a dwelling house. In most cases it will be dealing with big sites with considerable amounts of construction activity taking place. We normally would not expect dwelling houses to be present on such land.
	A relevant local planning authority will need to have a reasonable suspicion that a nationally significant infrastructure project is being developed on the site before ever contemplating using these rights of entry. In these circumstances, it is inappropriate for local planning authorities to be required to give 24 hours' notice before undertaking a site visit. Worse still, the effect of Amendments Nos. 397 and 398 may, in practice, be to frustrate the entire enforcement system. Giving 24 hours' notice would enable a landowner who had commenced an offence under Clauses 153 and 154 to remove evidence of the offence.
	As regards entry to a person's private home, authorisation can be given to enter a dwelling house only where it is on land being used for the construction of a nationally significant infrastructure project and only after 24 hours' notice has been given. It would not relate to land off the main construction site; for example, the home of a developer or engineer in order to seize documents or plans. Ministers believe that the clause as it stands strikes the right balance between the need to respect the rights of individuals to quiet enjoyment of their property and the need to ensure that the regulatory regime for major infrastructure is properly enforced.
	I hope noble Lords have found the information that I have provided useful and that I have managed to answer all the points made. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for having spotted a point which I was able to ask about and which he was able to answer. He said that no promoter would enter into a large-scale development unless the finance was absolutely secure. The events of the past few weeks have probably taught us all not to be too naïve about these matters.
	The Minister commented that local authorities are used to enforcement. Indeed they are, but the availability of resources for enforcement is a serious issue. The London Borough of Hillingdon has four enforcement officers—I may be wrong by one or two— and Heathrow Airport within its boundaries. There have been matters at Heathrow that it has not been able to pursue because of lack of resources. So we should not be too dependent on local authorities being able to pick up the pieces. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 154 agreed to.
	Clause 155 [Time limits]:
	[Amendment No. 396A not moved.]
	Clause 155 agreed to.
	Clause 156 [Rights to enter without warrant]:
	[Amendments Nos. 397 and 398 not moved.]
	Clause 156 agreed to.
	Clauses 157 to 166 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 399 not moved.]
	Clause 167 [Planning obligations]:

Lord Jenkin of Roding: moved Amendment No. 399A:
	Clause 167, page 85, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) in subsection (1) omit the words "interested in land in the area of a local planning authority";"

Lord Jenkin of Roding: The amendment concerns the question of who can enter into Section 106 agreements under the 1990 Act and suggests that the words,
	"interested in land in the area of a local planning authority",
	should be removed. The noble Baroness has been kind enough to send me a note to make it quite clear that if that were done there would be considerable disadvantages. However, it does not address the problem that has been drawn to my attention. Perhaps I may spend a moment on that.
	An example of what is envisaged concerns the promoter of a major infrastructure project who wants to enter into a planning obligation—that is, a Section 106 obligation—and the kind of difficulties that he might face in the absence of the wider powers intended. If there is a power under the consent to acquire land by means of compulsory purchase—for example, for the site of a power station—then, as the Bill stands, a promoter could enter into an obligation only after he had exercised that compulsory power. That would be rather difficult. I give a different example. A promoter proposes to install an overhead power cable or an underground pipeline. In such a situation, he would have no interest in the land at the time of the application for development consent; he would have an interest in the land only after the development consent had been obtained and he had exercised his compulsory purchase power. It would be only then that a Section 106 agreement could be considered.
	That does not seem right. Where there is an intention compulsorily to purchase land for a development, there should be some provision which would enable the application to be accompanied or followed by negotiations for a Section 106 agreement in advance of the developer gaining possession of the land. That is the point at which the amendment is aimed. I would not dream of pressing it in view of the horrible consequences that would follow, as was spelled out in the note that the Minister attached to her letter, but there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has raised the spectre of the amendment, I shall put on the record some of the arguments we addressed in the note that we sent to him.
	The amendment would allow a person to enter into a planning obligation agreement with a local planning authority on an area of land in which it has no interest. The noble Lord alluded to the fact that it fails to address the purpose of Section 106 agreements, which is to create covenants that bind land. Planning obligations are created to run with land so that they can be enforced against both the original covenanter and his or her successors in title. Allowing someone without an interest in land to restrict development or the use of land, or require payments to be made to an authority through a Section 106 agreement, creates an unfair expectation on the land for those who have an interest in it, whether current or subsequent. That was the key reason why we had a problem with the amendment.
	If the intention of the amendment is to allow some kind of obligation to be created, a contract agreement can be made between the applicant and the local planning authority without bringing Section 106 into it. The noble Lord asked me specifically about compulsory purchase, but I am not briefed on that in the context of the amendment. I have a note that says that if a Section 106 agreement is not attached to particular land then there is no difference between it and a normal contract governed by normal contract law. Therefore, the promoter must hold land before a Section 106 agreement can be concluded. That seems to meet the point in relation to compulsory purchase. With the noble Lord's agreement, I should like to read what he has said and see whether there is any way to make that even clearer so that he can go back to the people who were concerned about this issue and address the point properly.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful to the Minister. It might be helpful if the staff of her department were to get in touch with the Law Society, which was the organisation that suggested this to me. It is often better to discuss issues with the people who are primarily concerned with them.

Baroness Andrews: I am happy to do that.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 167 agreed to.
	Clause 168 [Blighted land: England and Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 400 and 401 not moved.]
	Clause 168 agreed to.
	Clause 169 [Blighted land: Scotland]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 402 to 404:
	Clause 169, page 88, line 2, after "construction" insert "(other than by a gas transporter)"
	Clause 169, page 88, line 19, after "construction" insert "(other than by a gas transporter)"
	Clause 169, page 89, line 40, after "(c. 58);" insert—
	""gas transporter" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (see section 7(1) of that Act);"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 169, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 170 agreed to.

Lord Patel of Bradford: moved Amendment No. 405:
	After Clause 170, insert the following new Clause—
	"Grants for advice and assistance: Scotland
	(1) The Secretary of State may make grants for the purpose of assisting any person to provide advice and assistance in connection with any matter which is related to the application of this Act to Scotland.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, as respects any such grant, provide that it is to be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate."

Lord Patel of Bradford: I shall be brief. Amendments Nos. 405 and 458 give the Secretary of State the power to make grants to assist with the provision of advice and assistance in connection with any matter that is related to the application of the Planning Bill to Scotland. The new clause inserted is equivalent to Clause 170 of the Bill, which relates to the giving of grants for advice and assistance in relation to projects in England and Wales. Clause 170 was included in the Bill so that grants could be given to bodies such as Planning Aid in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects. There would be concerns about fairness if people in some parts of the UK had access to advice and assistance in connection with an application for development consent or a proposed national policy statement but people in other parts of the UK who were similarly affected did not. Amendments Nos. 405 and 458 resolve that problem.
	Amendment No. 456 relates to Schedule 12. The amendment modifies Clause 163(3) to (5) in so far as those subsections apply to Scotland. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: I am grateful to see the Government's consideration that the Scottish planning authorities might need some assistance, although as I have followed the Bill—I must apologise that my stamina was not up to that of those who were here when these matters were considered around midnight last Tuesday—it has seemed to me that much of what might happen in Scotland is actually excluded in the way the Government have drawn it up. Obviously it is nice to have an umbrella clause to protect any assistance that might need to be given, but it struck me as strange under Clause 13, where the Bill allows for any legal challenge, that Scotland is excluded. I know the law is different in Scotland, but a great many of the issues that are included in the national infrastructure are for non-devolved issues. At some points Scotland will be involved, and I am grateful that it is being taken care of in this case.

The Earl of Caithness: I, too, was fascinated by this clause, and I would like a little more clarification from the Minister. Subsection (1) of the new clause in Amendment No. 405 says:
	"may make grants for the purpose of assisting any person".
	Am I "any person" if I live in Scotland, and what sort of grant am I entitled to?

Lord Patel of Bradford: The grant is most likely to go to something like Planning Aid for Scotland. The information is to give people an opportunity to find out information about the project where they normally would not have any. This will allow groups that are excluded and traditionally would not have access to that information—say, minority groups, Travellers, people on low incomes or unemployed people—to have free advice, but certainly would not benefit anyone who was commercially involved.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 406 not moved.]
	Clause 171 [Delegation of functions of regional planning bodies]:

Lord Judd: moved Amendment No. 407:
	Clause 171, page 91, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) Notwithstanding any arrangements made under subsection (1), the RPB retains the final authority and responsibility for the preparation of all regional planning documents."

Lord Judd: In moving this amendment I believe that I am reflecting significant concern that exists out there in the real communities about delegating any of the functions of the regional planning body wholly to the regional development agencies. The clause as it stands seeks to give RPBs the ability to make arrangements to delegate to the RDAs the exercise of any of its functions. I shall focus on the specific function of the production of the regional spatial strategy, a key regional planning document. Other noble Lords have identified other functions that give them similar cause for concern.
	RDAs, unlike the RPBs, lack democratic accountability. Their decision-making boards are composed only of appointed members, and this delegation could well herald a move to a fundamentally less broadly based inclusive approach to planning, something that is likely to foster cynicism about our commitment to the spirit of democratic accountability at all.
	RDAs have as their most significant task the promotion of economic growth within their regions. I endorse that priority without hesitation. However, as currently constituted, RPBs take into account social and environmental factors, especially through their social, economic and environmental partner arrangements. That is vital, because it is the RPB that brings to bear on planning and other regional spatial issues the necessary wider democratic input as well as environmental and social factors, all of which are crucial to reaching balanced decisions that have wide support, especially in the communities affected by those decisions.
	The RPB also gives clear democratic representation to local authorities and to the voluntary and community sectors, significantly reducing the risk that the entire process will be disproportionately influenced in favour of economic development alone, with those seeking a more balanced approach reflecting environmental factors automatically at a disadvantage.
	The clause seems possibly to pre-empt the outcome of the sub-national review of economic development and regeneration that the Government currently have under consideration. While I realise that the Government's most recent consultation document, Prosperous Places, also proposes that planning functions are transferred to RDAs, many key parts of civil society have strongly opposed that in their responses.
	It is perhaps not for this discussion, but it is worth noting that an alternative approach—the creation of regional sustainable development agencies—has been put forward by some of the critics. As proposed, these agencies would have a wider remit, giving proper weight to both environmental and economic issues, as well as incorporating democratically accountable membership.
	We must unquestionably have a strong economy, but a strong economy for what? Surely the qualitative dimensions of society are central to sustaining civilisation itself. I do not believe that that is to overstate the case. I suggest that it is not appropriate, therefore, that the Planning Bill should seek to build upon a draft proposal which has met with such significant opposition and may subsequently change. I take this opportunity to say, yet again, how much I appreciate the very full way in which my noble friend tries to clarify in correspondence points that may be at issue. I have noted the reassurance in her letter to me that this clause only enables the delegations of functions. She also points out that the ultimate responsibility remains with the RPB. But my noble friend knows, as I know—and I suspect most noble Lords know—that in reality, all too easily, delegation becomes transfer of powers unless a robust determination that it should not do so is on the face of the Bill.
	My noble friend also makes the important point that under existing planning legislation, the RPBs can delegate regional planning functions to local authorities. I have no issue with this, because local authorities are rightly subject to the democratic checks and balances, including objective consideration of social and environmental factors, which do not apply to RDAs. Frankly, I am not reassured by the duty laid on those exercising the regional planning function that they have to do so with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. This somewhat nebulous and often misused term might well allow RDAs to regard a healthy economy as the sole indicator of whether development can be regarded as sustainable and still be compliant with the legislation. My amendment is intended to strengthen this part of the Bill—I say again how much I welcome the Bill—by making it absolutely clear, which I consider it is not as the clause is drafted, that the responsibility and accountability remain with the RPB.
	Planning is obviously central to the well-being of us all. This surely demands that the maximum number of people and the widest possible cross-section of the community should identify with what is being done. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has pretty much said it all, but I go further in seeking to take the clause out of the Bill altogether. It was explained in the Commons, but not why it is there. I am aware that the shelf life of the regional assemblies may be limited; if that is the case, it would be better to have the constitutional structure of changes for the full package together. I assume that this is not the package because the RPBs' delegation is discretionary. I do not believe that the RDAs are the right bodies to take on planning functions, sponsored, I assume, by BERR. I would not say that their regeneration focus is necessarily inappropriate, but I do not think it is complete. Most importantly, they are appointed bodies and not representative of their communities.
	At this stage, I am seeking an explanation regarding what I now remember was called by the Bill team "transitional provisions" on a list of groupings. I should have been suspicious of that when I saw it.
	As a subsidiary question, what would the position be in London where there are different governmental arrangements, and in the London Development Agency, where the Mayor of London stands in the position of the Secretary of State vis-à-vis all the other development agencies?

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I suppose both proposals, but probably more so the Question whether the clause should stand part. I have a problem with the clause from both ends, as it were. Who are the RPBs—or, rather, who will they be? In the debate in the other place, the Minister repeatedly referred to regional assemblies, seemingly without realising that the Government had already decided to abolish them. So my first question is: how will the RPBs be constituted in the future? I expect that there are others here who know the answer. I ask that not to call into question or doubt the ability of local government to co-ordinate themselves on a regional basis. More and more work is being done on a cross-border basis on a whole range of work. What worries me is that unless the RPBs are properly constituted bodies, which remain in being in spite of the fact that they might have delegated their powers, how or when might a looser arrangement be able to regrasp these powers?
	That brings me to the other side of the equation. I do not believe, as others have stated, that RDAs are suitable to take on this role. They are economically focused; they have a big regeneration budget and can drive an economic agenda but they are not democratic. All too often they seem to think that they know best. They have a reputation in many areas of not listening very hard. They can drive an agenda without any democratic recourse and are not usually very popular organisations. They are, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, focused on economic regeneration, often at the expense of the social and environment factors—what the noble Lord loosely referred to as a quality of life agenda.
	I do not think that this delegation is a good idea. Incidentally, the few RDA board members to whom I have spoken are not particularly keen on it either. They do not think that they are really equipped to take on these responsibilities. If the RPBs were to delegate powers to the RDAs on a temporary basis, how could the RPBs, or whatever they may be in the future, be certain of being able to wrest those powers back again?

Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for enabling us to have this debate. This is an important clause and he has raised very important issues. As usual, I agree with much of what he has said; I do not agree with his amendment but I agree with the issues that he has raised, which are served by the Bill and by the clause. Let me explain why and take on board the questions that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
	The concern that has been expressed, particularly by my noble friend Lord Judd, is that given their remit to promote economic development, regional development agencies will naturally tend to focus on economic issues rather than promote sustainable development and housing supply. The motive behind trying to bring together our intention to replace regional economic and regional spatial strategies with a single regional strategy was precisely to make sure that we have in the future sufficient agencies in our regions to take advantage of every economic opportunity and, in the present economic conditions, to be sure that they are as robust and as focused on doing what they can as is possible.
	We have debated this in the context of the Bill as a whole and we cannot have a strong economy without having a sustainable economy. Regional development agencies have concentrated on economic issues in the past—that has been their raison d'être—but they will not be able to develop the single strategy with its purpose as we want it unless they address issues of sustainable development and housing supply.
	As to how planning responsibilities might be organised in the future, the regional development agency, if it were to be the planning agency, would have to operate the full range of planning legislation. That means sustainable planning legislation, which is at the very heart of our planning arrangements. PPS1, as I have quoted many times in this Chamber, has the responsibility for sustainable development. It is therefore tempting, but quite problematic, to pose these ideas as oppositional. The regional development agencies have to address issues of sustainability and, if they become responsible for planning in some shape or form, they will have to take on issues to do with sustainable development through the planning apparatus.

Lord Tyler: Does the Minister accept that if the change to which she refers takes place, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is well made; that is, that present regional boards simply are not equipped for this role, and will need quite different expertise and experience? What steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that?

Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may develop my argument, because the second part was essentially about the extension of democracy that we want to see and why that is compatible with what we are proposing. I rather jumped into my argument back to front; I should start with the story and then try to answer the questions.
	I remind noble Lords that in the sub-national review published last year we announced our intention, subject to consultation, to replace regional economic and regional spatial strategies with a single regional strategy and to transfer the regional planning functions of the assemblies—which of course are voluntary bodies; there was no question of our abolishing them—to regional development agencies following appropriate legislation.
	We have consulted on those proposals. There is widespread support for the principle of a single regional strategy, which would obviously make sense. However, there have been concerns about how best to secure this. Throughout this process, our intention has been to create a foundation for the future which strengthens partnership working between regional agencies and local authorities. We are carefully considering our response to the consultation to ensure that we obtain the best mechanism for taking the regional strategy forward. I say to my noble friend Lord Judd that there is no loss of democracy here. We are extremely keen to ensure that local authorities play the fullest possible part and that the balance of concerns meets both economic and social imperatives, which is what planning is about.
	Clause 171 was drafted simply to enable the regional assembly to delegate regional planning functions to the regional development agency if—but only if—both parties agree. The clause is effective, therefore, only where the regional assembly chooses to use it and the RDA agrees. This provision is important because we simply want to facilitate closer working between regional assemblies and RDAs. I have reassured my noble friend in writing but shall I do so again now. Clause 171 only enables delegation. It does not bring a transfer of function. As he will see, under subsection (7) the regional planning board can take back its delegated powers at any time. The powers will not be permanently transferred but facilitate something that we think is extremely important.

Lord Greaves: Will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will not provide any incentives or bribes in the form of money or greater powers to those who transfer compared with those who do not?

Lord Cameron of Dillington: The Minister mentioned regional assemblies five or six times. As I understand it, they will cease to exist next year. If they have delegated their powers, who will then get them back?

Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may go into a bit of detail. The powers of regional assemblies will be transferred in 2010. As I say, they are not statutory bodies; they can choose to have a life of their own and take on other functions. In the north-west, for example, the regional assembly has been formally abolished and 4NW has been established in its place with a leaders' forum for the north-west area. The Secretary of State has designated 4NW as the regional planning body for the north-west. It has received grant from CLG on the basis that it undertakes the activities of the previous regional assembly. In Yorkshire and Humberside, the regional assembly recently resolved to wind itself up with effect from the end of March 2009 and to replace itself with a leaders' forum. Discussions on the details of that are now being undertaken by the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber and regional partners. Each region can come to its own democratic decision on how best to be configured in the future. The leaders' forum is an idea that has been put forward and is an option. The important thing is to ensure that local authorities decide for themselves how best to exercise their partnership, which may take different forms.
	In the mean time, it is certainly the Government's intention to continue to fund the functions undertaken by the regional planning body to ensure, for example, that the RSS reviews are completed and that work on preparation for the single regional strategy is commenced. It underlines that we are essentially trying to achieve or facilitate through other configurations better democratic partnership in place of regional assemblies, ensuring that the local authority is smaller but has a driving power in that regional arrangement. As noble Lords will know, once the consultation is completed we shall in due course bring forward legislation to bring to life the SNR.
	The clause leaves essentially unchanged the ultimate responsibility for regional planning of regional assemblies whose membership is drawn predominantly from elected local government. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that it is not a transfer of powers but delegation, and that we are alive to the importance of ensuring that democratic control continues.

Lord Greaves: Do I understand that the Minister will not answer my question? I do not blame her if she does not.

Baroness Andrews: I am so sorry; I had no intention of not answering the noble Lord's question. We are not in the business of bribing anybody. The benefits that local government will see in becoming engaged in new regional planning arrangements are so self-evident that we do not need to create any artificial incentives. It will happen because it will be seen as the effective way forward, particularly when one considers the way that we need to look at our sub-regions as well as our regions.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me why we are doing this. Clause 171 not only achieves what she wants but improves on the current options available to regional assemblies. We made it clear in the sub-national review consultation document, Prosperous Places, that we wanted to facilitate closer working. The clause exists because, under existing legislation, there are limits on what RDAs can do in relation to planning. There are a number of situations where local authorities, regional assemblies and the RDAs want to work more closely together. The problem is that the RDAs cannot currently employ staff to engage in functions assigned to regional assemblies. They cannot support them and cannot facilitate them even where there is a desire on the part of both agencies to work more closely together. That is one reason for the clause. We know that some regions are interested in pursuing staff exchanges or joint appointments, for example. They cannot do that; they do not have an agency that allows them to do that. So we want them to be able to take some positive options, which is why the delegation powers are there.
	We want, too, to avoid the risk that regional assemblies and RDAs devise solutions that might be deemed legally unsound because they exceed the existing limit on what the RDAs do. Clause 171 simply makes it possible for closer working where it is sought; it means that they can get on with the job of sharing skills. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is very important—that is, who will be on the regional planning boards? I cannot answer that directly because we have yet to see how some of these new arrangements will work. Clearly, there will have to be a balance of democratic partners and skills and experience as well. To reiterate what I said more incoherently earlier, any work done by RDAs on planning must be done within the range of planning law obligations, and so on—and, therefore, the imperatives of sustainability as well.
	I hope that my noble friend is a bit comforted by that. The measure is timely and something that will enable us to plan more confidently for the future, if we can establish some better democratic relationships between the RDAs and the existing regional assemblies and their successor bodies.

Lord Judd: I thank my noble friend for her characteristically full reply. I know that she is wrestling with this problem very seriously. I also thank all those who have participated in an interesting little debate. I hope that all the points will be taken seriously.
	My noble friend emphasised the importance of sustainability. Here is the rub. Sustainability does not necessarily give priority to the qualitative dimensions of society. The point about the regional assemblies—and, presumably, what will be characteristic about the RPBs—is that they are an endeavour to bring together a meaningful cross-section of those who have a wider concept of what society is about and, as I put it repeatedly, why we need a strong economy to support society.
	My noble friend said a lot of things that obviously point in the right direction. I liked what she said about the significance of local councils. I shall go away and look very carefully at her remarks. I certainly hope that we can find some way of getting more explicitly on the record at this stage the Government's commitment to the qualitative dimensions—environment, heritage, amenities and the rest. I will take advantage of the offer that she kindly made in her letter to me that I should meet with officials and work out some way in which this could be convincingly done, other than by seeking to amend the Bill at Report. But I hope that she will take it in the best possible spirit that I shall need to be convinced; otherwise, I regard this as so important that I shall want to come back to it at Report.
	I hope that the Committee will forgive my saying that my formative young years in politics were in the post-war period. What struck me, and has always remained with me during subsequent years, is that we had a desperate task to rebuild the economy—but central in the counsels and deliberations of our leaders was the need for quality in that society. Hence, we had the Town and Country Planning Act and hence the national parks, with which I am associated, and the rest. We are now faced with a dire economic situation, which it will need all our resolve to overcome. I just wish that we could have it explicitly and clearly in the message to the nation that this is in order to have a worthwhile society. Therefore, in everything that we are doing about planning, those wider considerations should be as explicit and given as much priority as they were in the post-war years.
	I thank my noble friend for what she has said, and I will take her arguments very seriously as I read them again in Hansard. I may well ask to have a meeting with her officials. I reserve the right to come back to this matter at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 171 agreed to.
	Clause 172 [Local development documents]:
	[Amendments Nos. 408 to 409C not moved.]
	Clause 172 agreed to.
	Clause 173 [Development plan documents: climate change policies]:
	[Amendment No. 409D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 173 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 410 and 411 not moved.]
	Clauses 174 to 176 agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 412:
	After Clause 176, insert the following new Clauses—
	"Publicity for planning applications
	Publicity for applications affecting conservation areas and setting of listed buildings
	(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
	(2) For subsections (1) to (8) of section 67 (publicity for applications affecting setting of listed buildings) substitute—
	"(1) This section applies where an application for planning permission for any development of land is made to a local planning authority and the authority thinks that the development would affect the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area.
	(2) The local planning authority shall—
	(a) for not less than seven days display on or near the land a notice indicating the nature of the development in question and naming a place within the locality where a copy of the application, and of all plans and other documents submitted with it, will be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours during the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice was first displayed, and(b) where the authority maintains a website, publish the notice on its website.
	(3) In a case where the land is situated in England, the local planning authority shall send a copy of the notice to the Commission."
	(3) Section 73 (publicity for applications affecting conservation areas) is repealed.
	(4) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 (S.I. 1990/1519) are amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).
	(5) Paragraphs (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) of regulation 5A are revoked.
	(6) Paragraph (4) is amended as follows—
	(a) the words "Subject to paragraph (7)" are omitted;(b) the words "both of the following periods have elapsed, namely" are omitted;(c) for the words from "in paragraph (2)" to the end of paragraph (b) there is substituted "in section 67(2) of the Act has elapsed"."

Baroness Hamwee: This is a long and fairly disparate group. I shall speak to my amendments and make one comment on the Minister's.
	Amendments Nos. 412 and 413 took much longer in the drafting than I need to take in the explanation. These are matters that were brought to me by the Local Government Association, dealing with what it hopes can be a more efficient and economical way of publicising applications. Currently, applications must be publicised in local newspapers. The ODPM's review in 2004 encouraged local planning authorities to use council websites and proposed that the regulations be amended to allow for newspaper or online advertisements. In 2007, the Lifting the Burdens Task Force also recommended removing outmoded prescriptive requirements, such as newspaper notices. The Minister's department undertook to consider that as part of the review of the general development procedure order. However, not all the requirements for publicising planning applications are contained in that order. Hence my amendments—which, unusually, I accept would, by using the mechanism of primary legislation, amend some secondary legislation. It is really a matter of using the Bill as a legislative opportunity. In doing so, it will save local authorities quite a lot of money. I understand that a recent survey of 70 district councils found that, in the last financial year, publicity for planning applications cost each council on average £26,000. That is quite a lot of money for a district authority.
	I shall speak to my other amendments in this group but, taking it chronologically, I should point out that the next amendments in the group were tabled by Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has tabled an amendment to government Amendment No. 417 that I support. My antennae twitched very rapidly at the number of times the word "prescribed" is used in government Amendments Nos. 416 and 417. Although the Minister's amendments may be happier provisions than the original clauses, I hope that she can justify this amount of prescription.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her letter on Amendments Nos. 425, 427 and 428. She said that my first amendment would require that consideration be given to any other change of any degree of significance which might have been made, and that the clause itself is intended to stop the cumulative impact of a number of minor changes to the original permission leading to a material change occurring. In response to that I say: exactly. I think that we want to do the same thing. I am not convinced that my amendment is unhelpful.
	On Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 and whether an interest in land is required for subsequent changes to permission, the Minister wrote that for very minor changes it seems right that the ability to request a change is limited to someone with an interest in its implementation and that a local planning authority should not be able to use this provision to impose a minor change. I agree with both comments. However, it seems to me that at the stage when this is relevant the applicant might not still have an interest in land. I wonder whether the Government are being overcautious about this.
	Amendment No. 432A covers a point that was brought to my attention towards the end of last week. I have passed the paperwork on to the Minister's office. Although I understand that her officials may not have had an opportunity to consider this fully, I shall speak to the amendment in order, I hope, to enable her to give some assurances about the Government's taking the point seriously.
	The point was brought to me by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the successor to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. The earlier authority was able, as a precepting authority, to develop land for operational purposes, free from the risk that the proposed use could be prevented by enforcement of restrictive covenants. Although it may well have been an error, the LFEPA, which is not a precepting authority, lost that advantage. The importance of the issue to the LFEPA is that the authority has a programme of reviewing fire station provision, particularly through a major PFI initiative. Through my previous membership of the London Assembly, I am very well aware of the importance of that. The absence of an ability to override covenants means that the site reports prepared for some properties which identify covenants mean that they are not realistic prospects. The authority cannot risk investing in a site that could be the subject of an injunction. I am seeking to put the LFEPA back into line with the other fire and rescue services and, incidentally, with smaller organisations such as the Inner Temple. If the Inner Temple can have this benefit then London's fire authority should, too. I beg to move.

Baroness Whitaker: I shall speak very briefly to Amendment No. 413ZA and deal also with Amendments Nos. 413B and 432B, which are in the next group, since they all concern the identical issue of discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers. My noble friend's intention to omit Clause 177, which I welcome most warmly, does away with the need for the first two amendments. Regarding the third amendment, she has kindly written to me to explain safeguards to avoid discrimination, which will be attached to the criteria for determining the procedure provided for by Clause 190. I am extremely grateful for that too, so I shall not be moving any of these three amendments.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I rise to speak to my Amendment No. 417A, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I thank the Minister for tabling her two clarifying amendments to Clause 183. As I represent rural interests, I hope that she will not mind if I probe a bit more.
	These generally permitted development order rights are important to small farmers, particularly in the western half of the country where I come from. On the whole, these permitted rights—and this is probably a huge generalisation—do not affect larger farmers quite so much as their desired development mostly comes above the size limits of the buildings. Most of them are not so much engaged in small-scale part-time diversification projects, but for smaller farmers these rights can make or break their business.
	I add that the Government have, rightly, greatly encouraged, and been very helpful to, diversification by farmers and landowners, possibly reducing their reliance on government subsidies and other government support. Suffice it to say that many farmers—and it is not only the farmers because some rural tourist businesses are also affected—rely on the use of these permitted development rights to carry out modest scale developments that are essential to the running of their business. We are talking about the temporary use of land, such as the odd day's game or clay pigeon shoot, holding a motocross day or a car boot sale, allowing two or three caravans to park in a spare field, or erecting very small agricultural or forestry buildings.
	Local planning authorities can issue Article 4 directions to bring specific developments within planning control in specific areas. Currently, they require the Secretary of State's approval and there is a liability to pay compensation if the permitted right is withdrawn. These safeguards are entirely appropriate. It is interesting to note that the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently undertaken an internal review of permitted development rights to see what scope there is to relax them even further. Perhaps I have misread Clause 183 in its amended form, but it would seem to me that it is going slightly in the opposite direction. On the other hand, reading between the lines of the debate in the other place, in response to the amendment of Mr David Curry MP to this clause, I got the impression that it was not the Minister's intention to undermine permitted development rights for small family farms or for agriculture and forestry in general. I seek confirmation of this fact.

Lord Tyler: Amendment No. 429A introduces a new clause in relation to the use class orders, which neatly follows the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as it is concerned primarily with rural areas. I hope that Members on all sides of the House will share my concern that they are not ignored in this very important Bill.
	There is a welcome emphasis, which I think is shared by all sides of the House, for the way the Government are seeking more local determination and community involvement. It is important to establish that we all share enthusiasm for the revival of localism and greater responsibility for locally elected councillors. Most of the Bill has been concerned with major development projects and policies, but my proposed new clause is specifically aimed at the more immediate concern of residents of particular areas, of their communities and their elected representatives. They must surely be given renewed confidence that they can discuss and determine the appropriate planning policies for their own areas.
	My proposed new clause may well help many communities to do just that. However, as the Minister may be aware, my especial concern is for a problem peculiar and critical to areas of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset and, indeed, the Lake District, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. In those remote, scattered communities, which are very popular for second homes, there is a huge problem in need of urgent attention relating directly to the planning system.
	There is no problem with second homes in some parts of the country, notably in London. However, it is clearly true in some communities—not least those in north Cornwall that I represented in the other place—that second homes reach a point where they are simply so excessive in proportion to the natural housing stock, when they so dominate a town or village, that they present social, economic and planning problems. I remember one particular parish council area reaching well over 30 per cent second homes. When that parish council—Crantock, near Newquay in Cornwall—surveyed other councils in other parts of Cornwall, it found some also in excess of 30 per cent. At that point, the school is no longer viable; the post office and shop close; services such as bus services collapse; the police cover is reduced; and the health centre is removed. There is a "ghost village" in winter. This is a direct responsibility of the planning authority, because there is a major drain on local authority services.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, earlier referred to nimbys: the "Not in my back yard" people. They are often the most recent arrival to a village. This is writ large in those communities where the nimby representatives have a second home. The last thing that they want is any development for additional social or affordable housing. It is a huge problem, and getting worse.
	I emphasise to the Minister that this is a proper responsibility for the planning authority. Unless the Government come forward with some specific new powers, or new ways in which a planning authority can obtain that power, there will be a continuing escalation of this problem. There is no power at the moment. The full-time residence and the second home are in the same use class, so no consent is required to transfer from one to the other—despite planning conditions in many parts of the country insisting that a particular development is only for holiday use. It is therefore perfectly possible to do this, it is just that the Government have not been prepared to follow that precedent.
	As I am sure the Minister and others would agree, the last thing that we would want is a blanket restriction on second homes. We want those communities faced with the problem on such a scale that it reduces social cohesion to be prepared and able to take some responsibility for finding a solution. Hence the use of the use class order in certain circumstances. We do not want "The man in Whitehall knows best"; not least, the Minister will be glad to hear, "The woman in Whitehall knows best". We want locally elected representatives to be enabled to initiate locally the application of the use class order only when and where that may be necessary. It may be a very restricted area, but it is extremely important in those areas.
	There are two well researched reports—still on the desk of either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State—on rural housing, one prepared by Elinor Goodman, the other by Matthew Taylor, MP. They have laid great stress on the importance of doing something to provide affordable housing for rural communities. So far, the Government have failed to respond. I hope that the Minister may be able to do that this evening.
	Some people seem to think that the current housing crisis will alleviate this. Not so. While those seeking substantial investment opportunities away from the roller-coaster stock market may well put more money into investing in second homes in the expectation that scarcity will give them additional value over the long-term, they will of course continue to outbid local people by paying generous prices for second homes that will be quite out of the reach of those on modest incomes.
	In north Cornwall, when I represented communities there in the other place, we had the biggest affordability gap in the whole of the United Kingdom. The average local incomes in the area were way out of the average local house prices. I recall the day after the devastating floods of August 2004 in north Cornwall, when Boscastle was an appalling mess. We were very lucky not to have any loss of life. I took the Deputy Prime Minister there, and he asked about the long-term situation for coastal villages like Boscastle. I explained to him that young coastguards, RNLI crews, police and emergency personnel—the very people he had been congratulating on saving lives and saving that community—simply cannot afford to live anywhere near the coast in areas like Cornwall. That is true of many other parts of the United Kingdom. So much of the housing stock there has been bought up by those from outside wishing to establish a second home.
	I hope that there will be sympathy for my position from the Conservative Front Bench. With their newfound interest in these areas of the rural economy, I am sure that the Conservatives will recognise what a major problem this is. I hope that no Members of the Committee will be inhibited by being personally interested as having a second home from expressing a view on this extremely important issue. Principally, however, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to indicate this evening what, precisely, the Government are prepared to do for what is now becoming a devastating problem for a small number of communities. Unless we are prepared to address it as a Parliament, it will get a great deal worse.
	I look forward to the Minister's response a great deal. She has been kind enough to give me a slight indication of what it might be in the form of a letter. I hope that she will forgive me if I quote from it.
	"There is a lot that local planning authorities can do already to influence land uses in sensitive areas by using powers already conferred by the Use Classes order, backed by suitable policies in their local plans".
	There is no such power for second homes. We need that power, and we need it now.

The Earl of Caithness: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, in particular. I ask the Minister, when she comes—

Lord Dixon-Smith: As I have five amendments in this group, I thought I might have a chance to speak to them before my noble friend started picking up points. I might accidentally say something of interest to him; although I do not think that I will, because—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Dixon-Smith: The explanation for that is simple: the noble Baroness has taken the trouble to write to me on those amendments. I am grateful for that letter. Unfortunately, I received it only this morning. I have read it and it looks as though it has answered the points that we raised in those amendments. I give the Minister warning that I need to study it properly, but I do not propose to go any further this afternoon.
	I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is saying. I recognise that he is discussing a very real difficulty. I have been trying quite hard to make a connection between that and national infrastructure, but I may be rather less sympathetic than the Minister.

Noble Lords: It is in a different part of the Bill.

The Earl of Caithness: I was delighted to give way to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I was not certain whether he was going to get up before or after the Minister, so I went for the gap. I did not have the benefit of reading the letter that my noble friend has received from the Minister.
	I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said. It is extremely important to the farming industry to have consistency the treatment of farmers by local authorities. My concern about the Minister's Amendments Nos. 415 to 417 and 419 is that we could get a varying regime throughout the country. I hope that the Government's eagerness to tackle the possible residential problem in Westminster under permitted development does not lead by accident to the closing down of businesses in the country. If farmers are prevented using their existing permitted development rights, there could be serious problems, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, for smaller farmers.
	However, it is more complicated than that because farms do not follow planning boundaries. Part of a farm could be targeted by the local authority under the provisions of the Government's amendment, and the other part of the farm, in another planning authority, would not be subject to the same restrictions. I hope that the Minister will give a firm commitment that what she is outlining in her amendments will still permit agriculture, as we know it today, to continue with its general permitted development rights. If my memory serves me right, they go back to the 1947 Act which, once upon a time, I knew quite well, but which I have forgotten about.

Baroness Andrews: This has been an interesting debate because so many amendments raise significant problems in different ways. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for not speaking to his amendment. I shall summarise what I said so that we can have it on the record. I have a very long speaking note, but I am conscious of the time and that there is business waiting. I shall try not to speak so fast that I am incoherent. I shall take it steady.
	Amendments Nos. 412 and 413 insert new clauses that allow local planning authorities to advertise planning applications on the internet rather than in local newspapers. I understand the problem of accessibility and the case about cost. There is merit here, and I understand why the LGA is concerned. It may be that readership levels of local newspapers are not as high as they once were. However, they still serve a useful purpose, and I do not think we should exclude people because they are not online. My local newspaper has a tremendous following. This is an important point, and we will consider the publicity requirements for planning applications generally as part of the review and simplification of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. We are taking on board the issues raised by the noble Baroness. If we need to make a change, there is no need to do so in primary legislation. We could do it in secondary legislation. I hope the LGA will be satisfied with that.
	Amendments Nos. 415, 416, 417 and 419 are government amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, tabled Amendment No. 417A. I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, raised local determination. Much of this is about how we get more local determination through the local planning system and the GPDO. Amendments Nos. 415 to 417 and 419 make changes to the compensation provision contained in Clause 183, which establishes the principle that there should be a better balance between extended permitted development rights and the need, under certain circumstances, to restrict rights without incurring liability for compensation. That would depend on people having sufficient warning of changes that might affect them.
	Our amendments are made largely in response to representations that have been made as the Bill progressed through both Houses. I am sure that noble Lords know that the GPDO grants a national general planning permission for various types of normally small scale and uncontentious development and gives people the freedom to carry out certain changes to their homes without having to go through a planning application process and cuts down the work of planning authorities. The changes we have introduced after 20 years follow from our sense that as part of moving towards a more relaxed and proportionate approach—for example, in relation to household development—we also need a better balance between restricting rights in planning permission and the right to compensation. We have done that through the relaxation of the household development consents system and so on.
	Clause 183 now allows restrictive changes, whether through government amendment of legislation or through local withdrawal of a right—for example, under the old article 4 direction—to be made to permitted development rights without compensation being payable on condition that at least 12 months' notice is given of the change. However, I know that there is a strong case to be made in certain sectors, particularly in agriculture. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who pointed out what we mean by those effects; for example, small temporary buildings such as accommodation for seasonal workers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, brought it alive for me in a way that I had not been quite aware of because I was looking at the problem more abstractly. We are aware of those concerns, and Amendments Nos. 417 and 419 restrict this provision to types of development that will be specified in regulations. In consequence, with the exception of household development, on which we consulted in 2007, further public consultation will be required before regulations affecting other sectors can be made.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a point about partial or contradictory schemes. If we do it like this, we will have scheme that will not only allow the Government to listen and to consider carefully the potential impact on a sector before making further regulations, but we will be able consistently to address the needs of that sector. Given the wide range of permitted development rights, it is right that fuller consideration is given to how a change related to permitted development might impact on the sector. I hope that in that way we have met the intention of an amendment tabled by the honourable Member for Skipton and Ripon in another place, and I hope we have satisfied the anxieties of noble Lords. I should make it clear that these amendments apply not only to article 4 directions—that is, to local withdrawal of permitted development rights—but to any possible future restrictions imposed nationally by the Government via amendment or revocation of permitted development rights.
	Amendments Nos. 415 and 417 relate to the time span for making a planning application following an article 4 direction. Under Section 108 of the 1990 Act, where permitted development is withdrawn by government amendment or revocation, the potential liability to compensation applies only when the application for planning permission is submitted and turned down within 12 months of that change being made. Local authorities are treated differently, and we believe that is to their disadvantage. In the case of withdrawal or amendment of permitted development rights by local authorities, there is no requirement that applications for planning permission have to be submitted within 12 months of a change. For local authorities, there is indefinite liability for compensation. We feel that that is unfair and unreasonable and could be unnecessarily restrictive on local authority flexibility. Amendment No. 416 aims to put in place a mechanism that might level the playing field in future. It ensures that where permitted development rights are withdrawn by local government with less than 12 months' notice, compensation will be payable only when the subsequent application for planning permission is made within 12 months. That brings it into line with changes made by central government. Amendment No. 415 is a technical and consequential amendment.
	I want to make it clear that this change to the compensation period when an article 4 direction is made will apply only to the types of development specified through regulations. That will allow consideration of the potential impact on a sector in the same way that we have agreed is appropriate for the main change to the compensation provision that I have already spoken to in relation to Amendments Nos. 417 and 419.
	In summary, these amendments put in place common-sense safeguards to ensure that the greater flexibility for planning authorities provided by Amendment No. 183 is not at the cost of those who would benefit from permitted development rights.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I am probably very naïve about parliamentary speak, but so that I am totally clear, did the Minister say, in connection with my amendment, that, subject to public consultation, it is not currently the Government's intention that these permitted development rights should be withdrawn?

Baroness Andrews: That is correct in relation to the classes that we were talking about. Consultation will take place on the different sectors that might be affected and those consultations will then be reflected in regulations specific to those sectors. Nobody is nodding from the Box, but I think I am right. The regulations themselves will be consulted on. It will be the normal process. I think we will secure precisely those protections that we want to see for the sectors that have been identified.
	Amendments Nos. 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 425, 427, 428 and 426A all concern minor changes to planning permissions relating to land where changes are not material. I shall pick my way through my speaking notes. Clause 184 enables a local planning authority to make a minor change to a planning permission relating to land in its area where it is satisfied that the change is not material. By "not material" we simply mean a change that would not be significant in planning terms. We are making this change because when someone seeks to implement their permission they often find that minor changes to their original proposal are necessary. One could hold up an entire office block by trying to establish that the entrance to an office ought to be slightly to the left or right. In the past such minor changes were dealt with locally with planning authorities making a judgment about whether they were so minor that they could be allowed without any formal procedure, and that worked well. The problem has been that recent case law has thrown doubt on whether that approach is acceptable. There has been widespread uncertainty for planning authorities and developers and this has become a serious burden. All we seek to do in this clause is to reintroduce a little practical flexibility. A similar provision has existed in Scotland for around a quarter of a century and has worked very well. However, I understand that noble Lords seek reassurance on this. Amendments Nos. 421, 422, 423, 424 and 426, about which I wrote to the noble Lord, question how this will work in practice. Amendment No. 421 is unnecessary because Schedule 1 achieves the purpose of that amendment. Amendments Nos. 422, 423 and 424, which seek to limit a local authority's scope to exercise this power in relation to a material change, would not make much difference to what we are trying to do. If I put this into context, the concept of whether something is material is a longstanding one. Local planning authorities are well used to deciding what it means. They are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the planning system and it is fundamental that they exercise that judgment to ensure the system works. Removing the references, as the amendment suggests, would have little practical effect unless we were in a position to set out exactly what a non-material change was. Since it covers practically everything you can think of, we cannot address that in legislation. Moving a window might be material or non-material depending on the window, the dwelling or whether it was in a conservation area. I think that I addressed that in my note.
	Amendment No. 426 would remove the ability to make changes that are not material by removing or altering existing conditions or imposing new ones. It would prevent a local planning authority making very minor changes to an existing planning condition. However, if it is accepted that it should be possible to make non-material changes to a planning permission and the planning authority is best placed to decide that, whether material or not, there does not seem much reason to impose a restriction that would prevent a minor change to the planning condition. We are trying to ensure that we have proper flexibility and that local authorities will not suddenly make significant changes to their schemes after planning permission has been given.
	Amendment No. 426A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, is similar. It would prevent a condition being imposed. I accept that imposing a condition would in effect amount to a material change having been made. However, there might be occasion when the flexibility to do so would be useful. For example, if a developer asked whether a change could be made to reposition a window, the planning authority might consider that not to be material; for example, if it were obscure glazed to prevent overlooking. Therefore, I think that is covered by process.
	Amendments Nos. 425, 427 and 428 were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and would make a slight change to the provision at Section 96A(2) of the 1990 Act. Subsection (2) requires that when determining whether something is not material, a planning authority must consider any other minor change that has already been made to the original permission under this power. As she said, this is intended to stop the cumulative impact of a number of minor changes to the original planning permission leading to a material change occurring. As she also said, removing the words "under this section" from the provision would require consideration to be given to any other change of any degree of significance that might have been made. The other way in which changes might be made is through Section 97 of the 1990 Act. That section is not used frequently, but is exercised to make changes that are significant. However, the significant point here is that the process has important safeguards, including a requirement that the changes are agreed by all parties, including affected third parties. However, we are not concerned with that situation here. This measure is about the sensible use of very minor adjustments to agreed permissions, which will remain substantially the same. Therefore, I do not see much advantage in linking the two measures. Indeed, from these amendments I pick up a concern across the Committee that Clause 184 would somehow undermine how the planning system operates by allowing significant changes to be made against the public interest. However, I believe that the safeguards the clause contains as regards the limits on who can apply for a change and who determines the scale of any permitted change deal with that. The proposal was welcomed by the planning profession, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Planning Officers Society, and has been in place in Scotland for a quarter of a century.
	As regards Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 and a change being made only at the request of someone who has an interest in the land, the noble Baroness asked me specifically whether an applicant might not have an interest in the land and therefore could not use this power. In fact, an applicant for planning permission would be viewed as having an interest in the land under this provision, and therefore would be covered. I think that addresses the main points of those amendments.
	I am making progress; I now deal with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which was not what I expected. I thought that some other case would be made, to which I shall not draw attention. However, I now realise that he was interested in the change in use process with regard to second homes. I wish that I could give him more satisfaction on that, but I cannot. There is real difficulty in introducing a new use class for dwellings used as second homes. He made a wonderful and entirely persuasive speech, but the problem is that the properties used as second homes are usually normal dwelling houses, irrespective of how regularly they are used. It might be very difficult to prove use of a dwelling as a second home. People use second homes for a wide range of interests and purposes and lifestyles are so different that enforcement is likely to be very difficult. As tempting as it might be to see this as an easy solution, it is not. Whether a person purchasing a property already owns another property elsewhere is not a land use planning consideration. To take into account these factors in information that has no relevance to a decision on a planning matter would be ultra vires.
	The noble Lord referred to certain reports. Matthew Taylor's report has recommended that the Government should trial planning rules limiting changes in use of full-time homes to second homes or holiday lets in one of more of the national parks. We are looking at Matthew Taylor's report in detail and we will publish a response later this year, but we are not convinced that the recommendation for trialling planning rules with the aim of controlling second homes and holiday lets is a workable solution to the wider issue of housing affordability. As the noble Lord knows better than most Members of the Committee, to address rural affordability one needs a wide range of policies which create a synergy and incentive which respect human rights and the real needs of people who are being priced out of those areas where the ratio of affordability to prices is eight or nine to one—as high as it is in central London. We are well aware of that.
	I think that the noble Baroness said that she was not moving Amendment No. 430, so I shall move swiftly on. Amendments Nos. 431 and 432 are government amendments that correct an unintentional drafting error that would have given excessively broad powers for the making of tree preservation regulations under the new Section 202G(1) of the 1990 Act that is introduced in Clause 186. The amendment would provide similar provision to that currently in Section 194A of the 1990 Act, and it is consistent with the recommendations of the DPRRC. Amendment No. 432 corrects a minor drafting error in Schedule 8. The tree preservation provisions that we have made in the Bill are excellent, but I am not sorry that we are not debating them.
	The noble Baroness kindly gave notice of Amendment No. 432A, which covers the situation faced by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority in developing sites that are subject to easements and restricted covenants because they have no access to the provisions of Section 237 of the TCPA. The Government are sympathetic to the problems faced by the FEPA, which I understand languishes in a legislative lacuna. The predecessor was a precepting authority, which fell within the definition of a local authority and therefore had access to the benefits of Section 237.
	The FEPA functions, in the main, like a combined fire authority, which is also specifically defined as a local authority. All those definitions are in the definition of local authority in Section 336(1)(a) of the TCPA. It may well be that Amendment No. 432A, by making the FEPA a local authority only for the purposes of Section 237, would create another anomaly. We need to discuss with the FEPA and others whether its status as a local authority should go wider than Section 237. Although that is the trigger for this debate, it is not the only issue that is raised. The amendment raises a number of complex points, which I would like to explore further.
	Amendment No. 433 was tabled by the Government in response to concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the excessive scope of the powers in the substituted Section 303 of the TCPA 1990 to amend, repeal or revoke other legislation. The amendment restricts that power, so that it can only happen in the appropriate circumstances. Those circumstances are the effect of paying or failing to pay a fee or charge in accordance with the regulations in subsection (5)(f) or making incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision and savings in subsection (6)(a). We have reflected the committee's suggestion that we restrict the scope of the power.
	I am aware of the speed at which I have gone through this. I hope that I have answered most of the questions raised by the amendments. I would be happy to write to noble Lords if they feel that I have not done so.

Baroness Hamwee: I know what I ought to do, but before I do it, I urge the Minister to ensure that the problem for the FEPA is sorted out as soon as possible, if this is the opportunity in which to do so. She will understand the consequences that flow from it not being able to pursue the best PFI deal. It is a much bigger point than it appears from the short amendment. I will do what I ought to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 413 not moved.]
	Clause 177 [Determination of planning applications by officers]:
	[Amendment No. 413ZA not moved.]

Lord Patel of Bradford: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.55 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

Lord McKenzie of Luton: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 July be approved.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am happy to confirm to noble Lords that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The purpose of these amending regulations is straightforward. They restore eligibility for statutory sick pay to agency workers who have contracts of three months or less. That eligibility was removed as a result of a Court of Appeal decision in 2007. In making this amendment, we are restoring the original intention of changes made in 2002. Specifically, the regulations revise the wording of Regulation 19 of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, in order to ensure that agency workers are not excluded from the changes made to statutory sick pay by the regulations. That would take effect from 27 October 2008.
	Noble Lords may be wondering why a Work and Pensions Minister is introducing amending regulations under the Employment Act, which might normally fall to colleagues from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. However, I am proposing these changes with the agreement of BERR Ministers, because they introduce a change for statutory sick pay, responsibility for which rests with the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Before going further, it may be helpful if I set out some brief background information about statutory sick pay and how the various legislative changes relate to the regulations. The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 makes provision for a minimum payment to be made to workers who are unable to work due to sickness, provided they meet the entitlement conditions. Statutory sick pay is payable to anyone who is classified as an employed earner for national insurance purposes. Agency workers may be categorised as employed earners for those purposes. If that is the case, they become liable to pay national insurance contributions in the same way as other employed earners and should have the same opportunity to qualify for all statutory payments, including statutory sick pay.
	Employers meet the cost of statutory sick pay, although some are entitled to a government rebate if they experience unusually high levels of sickness absence. The Employment Act 2002 and the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations removed working practices or legislation that treated people with fixed-term contracts less favourably than those with permanent contracts. As a result, a restriction which prevented people with contracts of three months of less from receiving statutory sick pay was removed. Thereafter, people who had contracts lasting three months or less became eligible for statutory sick pay in the same way as other workers.
	The change in 2002 was introduced on the basis that it would remove the three-month barrier to statutory sick payment for all those who would qualify for entitlement. However, an employment agency subsequently challenged the requirement to pay statutory sick pay to its agency workers. It argued that an effect of Regulation 19 of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 was to exclude agency workers from the changes made by the regulations to statutory sick pay legislation. The challenge was successful. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the position taken by the Thorn Baker agency.
	Hence, that leaves a complex and inequitable position, whereby statutory sick pay is payable to individuals who are not agency workers, regardless of the length of their contract, and to agency workers with contracts in excess of three months, but it is not payable to agency workers with a contract lasting three months or less.
	The Government, nevertheless, remain committed to the principle that those who work through agencies should have the same access to SSP as they have to all the other statutory payments and the same access to SSP as other people who pay national insurance. By making this amendment to the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, we will remove the inequality and restore the original intent. This is the amendment for which I seek the approval of the House today. Between 1 million and 1.5 million agency workers work for more than 15,000 agencies. We estimate that as many as 60,000 agency workers could benefit from this measure.
	We have considered the financial implications for agencies before bringing this amendment to the House. Of course, agencies already meet statutory sick pay costs for those who have contracts totalling more than 13 weeks. Equally, other employers routinely meet these costs when paying statutory sick pay to their employees, regardless of the length of employment.
	We estimate that the average cost to each agency of this measure will be in the region of £850 per year. The overall cost to business will be in the region of £13.5 million. Notwithstanding that, I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that there can be no justification for retaining a provision which excludes only this group of workers from sick pay, when comparable workers benefit from this financial protection.
	Finally, I hope that we can all agree that it is just to restore the original policy intention and ensure that agency workers are entitled to statutory sick pay on a level footing with other workers. I commend this amendment to the regulations to noble Lords.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 July be approved. 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it seems to me that from time to time strange things happen in your Lordships' House, and the subject of today's debate and where it is taking place are two of them. Taking the second one first, one would expect that a non-contentious order such as this to be debated in Grand Committee, but the powers that be clearly decided otherwise. I accept that that decision was not in the Minister's hands, nor in those of his officials. The other matter is very much in the hands of his department.
	As he said in his clear exposition of the reasons behind the regulations, the courts pointed out a lacuna in the law on statutory sick pay. This leads to my first question, because in legislation statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay have certain links, do they not? The question is whether statutory maternity pay is included in this order, although the Minister did not mention it.
	It has quite rightly always been the Government's intention that the two benefits should apply to all employees paying national insurance contributions, whoever they work for. This was intended to cover agency and other part-time employees. It was not until the matter was tested in the courts that the Government discovered that agency workers were not covered, and thus some of them did not receive benefits, while others did. The situation, as the noble Lord explained, is even more complicated than that.
	I understand that the confusion dates back to 2002, when the law was last amended. One rather wonders why this manifest unfairness was not spotted at the time. It is not only an unfairness—if I may be allowed to use such an inelegant expression—for people employed by agencies, which have viewed the law differently, but between full-time and agency employees. There is no doubt that Parliament slipped up and it is impossible to blame any individual. However, over the past few years I have come to the conclusion that all proposed legislation, whether primary or secondary, should be read by a lawyer outside the department that is to propose it. A certain amount of that is done already in the modern invention of draft Bills, by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the fairly new Merits Committee. None the less, occasional annoying lapses occur and the law has to be returned to the original policy intention—as in this case.
	Inevitably, I have a few questions on the detail of the regulations. The first is based on my rather shaky knowledge of statutory sick pay. If the illness falls towards the end of a period of employment and extends beyond that point, what recourse does the sick or injured person have to state benefits? Secondly, my colleague in another place, while welcoming the regulations, as I have done, asked a question which the Minister's ministerial confrère in another place failed to answer. My honourable friend had noted that if an employee became sick in their current employment and had been on incapacity benefit within the past two years, they should claim incapacity benefit, not statutory sick pay. Given that the two incidents may be totally unrelated—the first, perhaps, for a back injury and the second for influenza or something even more serious, like meningitis—there seems to be no logic at all to that. I am giving the Minister another chance to answer.
	While the Minister is at it, he might, with advantage, remind the House of the rates of incapacity benefit and statutory sick pay, and of the new employment and support allowance, which will be up and running for new payments within days, I understand. Also, can we be assured that statutory sick pay law covers part-time, non-agency workers, as it should?
	I note that one of the effects of the original policy, as amended by the order, is to save 2,000 reams of paper as a result of not having to process incapacity benefit claims. How many civil servants will be made redundant or, more likely, moved to another job within the department as a result? I also note that this measure will, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, save the Exchequer some £14 million—although I think that the noble Lord mentioned a marginally lesser figure of £13.5 million. That does not really matter, because it is not a lot of money in government terms.
	In these constrained and straitened financial times, any money that the Government do not have to borrow to support banks or speed up the increase in the national infrastructure must be a bonus. Will the £14 million, or whatever the figure is, remain within the departmental budget, or will it be returned to the Treasury? If the answer is the former, what will it be used for?
	Notwithstanding these matters of detail, we on these Benches—all of us—support the order.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has just alluded to was very telling: he is, in fact, alone on the Conservative Benches, as I am on these Benches, I fear.
	I on these Benches support this measure. Agency workers, as the very helpful Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, are a poorly paid and vulnerable group. It points out that on average they earn only £7.80 an hour, compared to an average of £11.47 an hour for other people. A very high proportion of agency workers are recent immigrants; something like 13 per cent of immigrants since 2003, compared to only 2 per cent of the population as a whole, are agency workers. In an increasingly outsourced world, we believe that they must not be treated less favourably than other workers.
	My honourable friend Lorely Burt in the Commons has worked hard on this issue and has been involved in putting through a lot of legislation to make the situation for agency workers just as fair as that for all workers. We are firmly in favour of this measure.
	I have one or two questions. I was intrigued to see in the greenhouse gas assessment that there will be a saving to the department of approximately 2,000 reams of paper from the consequential reduction in the use of 63,000 claims forms. Does that mean 2,000 reams a year or once? I cannot remember what a ream is—it is a long time since I was at school. Is that a number of pieces of paper, like a quire? Perhaps the Minister can help me on that.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Five hundred, my Lords.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Thank you, my Lords; that is a lot of pieces of paper. Can the department recycle the forms, or are they now just waste paper?
	More seriously, the Minister explained—although I am not sure that I followed the division of responsibilities—why he, as a DWP Minister moved the amendments to the regulations, as opposed to a Minister from DBERR. Has the Minister seen today's Independent, which has the dramatic headline, "Mandelson halts flexitime reforms" or the nasty little spat that has blown up between him and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, reported in today's Evening Standard? This measure, which we support, is very much of a piece with other measures which are family friendly, but are a cost to business. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, is today quoted as saying that the Government are searching for ways to help businesses to survive the downturn and are looking to postpone measures such as extending paid maternity leave, an extra bank holiday and, indeed, family-friendly working. Has he cleared this measure with the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson? Does support for business come first, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, is briefing the press? Obviously, in this case we would not be doing things like this which will cost business about £14 million a year more, or is family-friendly working the priority, as Yvette Cooper insists?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I welcome the support of both noble Lords for this measure. I think we all recognise the importance of the equity in it. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised a number of points and I shall try to deal with each of them. He asked whether the regulations included references to statutory maternity pay; the answer is no. Only SSP is affected by the three-month exclusion. The agency workers who meet qualifying conditions are eligible to all statutory maternity pay on the same basis as anyone else. He asked why that was not corrected earlier. We have corrected it as quickly as possible following the court judgment. Until that court judgment, obviously, we had maintained that our interpretation was as we now have it.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that was not quite my question. I certainly was not blaming the department. I was expressing surprise that no one outside the department had picked it up earlier, which is a rather different point.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the need to put us back to where we believed we were arises from the judgment of the court. Up until that judgment, we believed that the position that we will now be in if these regulations are passed was where we always were.
	The noble Lord asked about the rates of employment and support allowance and the rates of SSP. The basic rate of the employment and support allowance, after the initial 13 week period, has been set at £84.50. That is not for the support group. Noble Lords will remember that there is a higher rate of allowance. Statutory sick pay is currently £74.50 per week, so there is a difference between those two. He also asked about part-time workers. The number of hours an employee works does not affect entitlement to SSP. Part-time workers are covered by the scheme and by this amendment to it. They are entitled to SSP from their employers if all the qualifying conditions are met. Of course, SSP is subject to a qualifying condition that an employee's average earnings in the eight weeks prior to sickness have been at least at the lower earnings limit—currently £90 a week, which is the point at which earnings become relevant for national insurance contributions. The fact that they may be part-time does not preclude statutory sick pay becoming due.
	The noble Lord referred to my figure below £40 million. It was £13.5 million which we believe is the cost to employers. Obviously, there will be some agencies that do not bear the cost of statutory sick pay for people with contracts below 13 weeks currently and that will cause them to have to meet those costs. I was referring to that figure. He also asked about what recourse a person has to state benefit beyond the end of the period at the end of their contract. Once the contract has terminated or entitlement to SSP has been exhausted, a person can claim employment and support allowance or incapacity benefit or even income support in the normal way if they have insufficient income or no entitlement to employment and support allowance or incapacity benefit as the case may be. The normal benefits would potentially kick in.
	The noble Lord also asked about the right to return for benefits for up to two years after claiming. The right to return to benefit is important for two reasons. First, it applies only to people who have been receiving incapacity benefit—that will be the position in the future with employment and support allowance—for longer than six months before leaving that benefit to take up work again. It gives them the confidence to enter the workforce again without the fear of returning to a lower level of benefit should their condition worsen shortly after returning to work. Secondly, of course, it gives employers the confidence to take on such workers without the burden of having to pay statutory sick pay for two years. We believe that this is a straightforward approach and avoids having different rules depending on circumstances, length or type of illness. It is encouragement for people to move into work. Noble Lords may recall that we touched on that from time to time in relation to our debates on the Welfare Reform Bill last year.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, offered his support, for which I am grateful. He asked whether the 2,000 reams of paper were per year. The answer is yes. He also asked about the DWP's ability to recycle. We have robust policies on recycling in the DWP, as elsewhere in government. He tempted me to comment on today's article in the Independent and its speculation about the future of a range of policies. I can assure the noble Lord that we have agreement with BERR, as I indicated earlier, in moving and supporting these regulations. That agreement is welcome indeed and thoroughly anticipated from BERR, it being the progressive department that it is.
	I believe I have dealt with each of the points raised. I am grateful for the support of noble Lords. We are determined to ensure that workers have equal entitlement to statutory sick pay so that no one group is marginalised.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister finishes, like the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I asked about the 2,000 reams of paper. Currently, they are processed by officials of the Minister's department. Therefore, if 2,000 reams of paper no longer need to be processed, there is a saving of officials' time. I asked what would happen to those officials.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, as ever, the department is looking to drive efficiencies in how it operates consistent with producing increasing improvements to customer service. Doubtless, any saving of any nature will be deployed to that good effect; I am sure that that will happen in this case.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.55 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.17 to 8.55pm.]

Planning Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 177.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 413A:
	Clause 177, page 96, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 97

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I will say nothing about Amendment No. 413A. It is quite irrelevant because the Minister has withdrawn the whole clause. Perhaps she should follow. I reserve the right to speak to one or two of the other amendments in this group.

Baroness Andrews: I will take advantage of the noble Lord's courtesy and give the Government's arguments for withdrawing Clauses 177 to 180. The clauses all relate to provisions for established local member review bodies, which were intended to determine certain planning appeals, instead of the Secretary of State as now. They make provision for local planning authorities to have mandatory schemes of delegation for certain types of planning application. They have attracted much debate, which I will bypass by outlining the Government's position.
	As I signalled at Second Reading, we have listened carefully to stakeholders' views on this proposal. Many professional bodies, including the RTPI, RICS and RIBA, were particularly concerned about the implications of the proposal and are delighted that we have listened to their views and to those of others. On that basis, we concluded that although local member review bodies may bring some benefit through devolving power to local councillors to decide appeals on planning proposals with only local impacts, they risk distracting local authorities, particularly when, as I am sure we all agree, there is an urgent need for them to focus on strategic plans and issues. I therefore propose that Clauses 177 to 180 do not stand part of the Bill.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: A number of other amendments are grouped with this amendment. I do not know whether other noble Lords wish to speak to them. I shall simply refer to Clause 190. The Minister has written me a long and extremely helpful letter about the appeal procedure and the appellant choosing the procedure for handling their case. Much of what she said is persuasive, so I do not wish to pursue it, although other noble Lords may wish to do so.
	Amendment No. 433A is about fees. I entirely understand the principle of paying a fee for making an appeal to cover part of the cost of the Planning Inspectorate handling the appeal. However, I cannot support charging an appellant when the reason for the appeal is the failure of the local authority to decide the application. That is double jeopardy. In all too many cases, non-determination is a positive decision by the local authority. It enables the authority to evade the local political difficulty of making an unpopular decision and shifts the burden on to the inspectorate.
	In the present environment of control over local authorities—we are still living very much in a target culture—many local planning authorities resort to avoiding making decisions on more complicated applications so as to ensure that they are able to meet the target for processing applications within eight weeks of receipt. That is, as it were, working to the target. In those circumstances, it would be very unfair to levy fees on the appellant because in the end he was driven to appeal. Perhaps the noble Baroness is able to argue why that is right. I would argue that it is quite wrong in those circumstances. The local authority should bear the costs.

Baroness Hamwee: On Clause 190, I have not seen the Minister's letter and I should be grateful for a copy. I indicated my intention to oppose Clause 190 only towards the end of last week and that may be why I have not received it. It was an oversight that that was not done earlier. I may be persuaded, but there is a point of principle here about a right to be heard and a right to go face-to-face with the inspector who will make the decision. The noble Baroness will know that one suggestion for dealing with the unreasonable use of the right of oral representation would be to make use of the costs order.
	I have had a look at the criteria proposed by the Government for the three types of response to an appeal set out in the consultation document. As regards written representations being those which can reasonably be argued and understood by all parties, what is reasonable to a third party is often not so to the applicant or objector. We are talking about the applicant. I am not using this as a basis for arguing about the rights of appeal for objectors. Things look very different when you are the applicant.
	On when hearings will be suitable, the criteria suggest when the applicant or, in the case of enforcement, the appellant does not consider it necessary to be legally represented. I would say, "and does not intend" to be legally represented. These are fine points. The point of principle is a right to be heard, as well as a right for the local planning authority to call for an oral hearing. There is a wider public interest aspect to this.
	On his other amendment in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to local planning authorities not taking decisions in order to avoid politically difficult situations locally. But when something is politically controversial, local people will want an assurance about thoroughness and effective investigation, and the opportunity to make their own position plain. I may be persuaded when I have heard the Minister's arguments, but I am distinctly worried by Clause 190.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I, too, oppose the Question that Clause 190 stand part of the Bill and point out that I have not seen the letter. I gather that this proposal was first aired through government consultation on the planning White Paper in 2007 when 81 per cent of businesses and 60 per cent of professionals and academics viewed the proposal negatively. However, the Government seem to be pursuing it in this Bill.
	A fairly powerful disincentive already exists in terms of costs and the additional delays associated with hearings and inquiries, so I should have thought that to do away by law with the party's choice of hearing is not satisfactory. I do not see how the Planning Inspectorate can best judge from afar whether cross-examination is needed because the case will depend on a multiplicity of factors. For example, it may be that the local planning authority has decided similar applications differently and the appellant wishes to cross-examine on that. Equally, it may be something said by officers in pre-application discussions or an aspect of how the officer or the committee handled the determination that is in dispute. All these matters might merit cross-examination, and I do not see how the Planning Inspectorate can necessarily judge them.
	Recently, for example, there was a successful enforcement appeal by inquiry where one of the reasons cited by the inspector for disagreeing with a previous inspector who had considered the same development on appeal following the application stage was the fact that the previous appeal had been determined only by written representations. That example demonstrates the need for appellants to have the right to demand a hearing if they wish to spend their money in that way.

Baroness Andrews: These are important issues and I am sorry if some noble Lords did not receive the famous letter. I shall make sure that they are sent it anyway, but now I shall speak for the record and thus tell noble Lords what was in it. The right to be heard raises serious issues and I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the Bill provides for it.
	Essentially the clause requires the Secretary of State to determine the procedure by which appeals and calling cases under the Town and Country Planning Act, the Listed Buildings Act and the Hazardous Substances Act should be considered, while Schedule 10 sets out consequential amendments to those Acts. I shall set out the reasoning for this and make clear the safeguards that are in place, but first I shall give a bit of background, which I am sure noble Lords will appreciate. The existing appeals system is under severe strain and does not always serve as well as it might the purposes of those who choose to appeal. It can be disproportionate in the way it handles cases. At the moment, parties are allowed to select the procedure by which a case can proceed—written representations, a hearing or an inquiry—regardless of the suitability of the process to the complexity of the case.
	Under the present system, even the simplest cases such as appeals relating to dormer windows or boundary walls can proceed via a hearing or an inquiry when written representations would be just as appropriate and certainly speedier. I submit that they would also be much less stressful for all concerned. The use of disproportionately complex methods of appeal in cases that do not necessarily warrant them results in inefficiencies and delays, as well as a lack of credibility. It is important that we introduce more proportion and clarity into the appeals system so that the procedures reflect relative complexity without putting anyone at a disadvantage. Ensuring that all cases are dealt with using the most appropriate appeal method will lead to quicker decisions and will save everyone time, stress and money. In practice, this proposal would allow the Planning Inspectorate to use its delegated powers to determine on behalf of the Secretary of State the appropriate procedure for each case, whether it is a local inquiry, hearing or written representations.
	I shall now go through the safeguards that are built into the process to ensure that the right and acceptable procedure is selected for each case. Clause 190 would simply enable the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, to apply published criteria which Ministers have approved to determine the most appropriate procedure for appeals and calling cases. We are talking about transparency here. These criteria have already been consulted on in our consultation paper, Improving the Appeals Process in the Planning System: Making it Proportionate, Customer Focused, Efficient and Well Resourced. We will keep it under review, and further consultation obviously may be appropriate from time to time. These criteria are there for all to see and they will operate in a spirit of transparent fairness.
	The principal parties, being the applicant, the appellant or the local planning authority, will be invited to indicate in the early stages of a case the procedure that they believe is most appropriate, and why. Any representations made by the parties as to the procedure they think is most appropriate will be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate when making a decision—the right to be heard is clearly in place. Only in cases where there is a disagreement between the parties as to what is best and the planning inspector's procedure team as to what procedure should be used will a professionally qualified inspector at assistant director level be called on to make the final decision. The parties will be informed of the method that the inspectorate considers the most appropriate and why. With all their huge experience, I am sure that we can trust them not only to come to the right decision but to communicate that decision in a way that people accept as trustworthy and efficacious.
	In addition, I will be asking the Advisory Panel on Standards, which supports us across the planning system, for the Planning Inspectorate to look at any cases of complaint and report to me on how the system operates in practice. So we will be monitoring it through APOS. In tandem with this provision, we have already said that we will extend the costs regime, which currently applies to hearings and inquiries only, to the written representation procedure. This will ensure that, regardless of the procedure pursued, applicants and local planning authorities will have an opportunity to seek an award of costs in cases where unreasonable behaviour by another party has caused them unnecessary expense. I appreciate what the noble Lord said about having been persuaded by the process as set out in my letter. I believe genuinely that this does not deprive people of the right to be heard. It makes provision for proper choice and proper arbitration when there is a problem. Certainly people will have the right to be heard.
	Case law demonstrates that the right to be heard can be satisfied by the provision of evidence through written representations. Cases that do not need an oral hearing could be fairly and effectively handled by means of written representations with no loss of quality or equity in the process or the decision. Obviously the outcome will depend on how convincingly the inspector finds the planning merits, not the method of their presentation. In this way we will ensure that people in vulnerable groups are given a fair hearing and an opportunity to put forward their case. That may well mean that a hearing or inquiry is appropriate even where this would not normally be justified by the complexity of the case.

Lord Tyler: How does the Minister propose to ensure that third parties, who may be local representatives, are built into the system so that they can make representations to seek a full hearing rather than simply a decision based on written representations? I, for example, as a local councillor, have several times appeared at planning inquiries to represent the views of the local community as opposed to the planning authority or the applicant. That can be the deciding factor.

Baroness Andrews: I am sure that provision can be made for that. However, because I do not have the detail of how it fits into the sequence of the process, I shall write to the noble Lord about it. It is an important point for all the reasons he has given. Indeed, third parties would not be disadvantaged by this proposal. They would still have the opportunity to put forward representations on a case regardless of the procedures selected. As now, these representations will be taken into account by an inspector. I am grateful to my officials for enabling me to put that on the record.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke to Amendment No. 433A and asked how we justify introducing an appeal fee—a general regime in which appellants pay a fee for pursuing a planning appeal even when they were appealing against a failure by the local planning authority to determine a planning appeal or a listed building application. That is the burden of the amendment. I had better read that again. The effect of Amendment No. 433A within a general regime in which appellants paid a fee for pursuing a planning appeal would be that those appealing against a failure by a local planning authority to determine a planning appeal or a listed building application would be exempt from such fees. The noble Lord asked me to justify the original intention.
	I sympathise with what I think is the underlying sentiment here, not least because the noble Lord spelled it out: that people should not have to pay for an appeal because a local authority fails to act. However, we have to look at the situation that, in practice, local authority planners find themselves in. In introducing an appeal fee our intention is to transfer part of the cost of running the appeals service from the general taxpayer to those who might actually benefit. That principle is applicable whatever the reason for an appeal or its eventual outcome, and any fee would be payable to the planning inspector to offset the costs of providing the appeals service.
	It is worth recalling the real impact of this, because I think it will give the noble Lord some comfort. Local authorities have already reduced the time taken to determine planning applications. Around 80 per cent now consistently meet their target timescales for determining applications, so the number of appeals against non-determination should be relatively small. In any case, where applications are not determined within the prescribed timeframe, it may not just be default laziness or anything like that; it may be because planning officers are trying to resolve some concern about the application that would otherwise mean that it had to be refused. So it is not wholly the fault of the planning authority in many of these instances.
	If an authority fails to determine a case within the prescribed period, an applicant has the option of continuing to negotiate an outcome with the authority. Frankly, that may be quicker than going to appeal. The prospect of paying a fee to appeal should encourage applicants to continue negotiations with local authorities; it could be a positive incentive, and could discourage appeals that are made for, shall we say, tactical reasons.
	If there is evidence that a local planning authority has acted unreasonably in a non-determination case, the applicant could seek an award of costs as part of the appeal proceedings. The Planning Inspectorate intends to adopt a rigorous approach to such cases to ensure that appellants are not unfairly penalised, and I think we can meet the objections of the amendment.
	Before we introduce an appeal fee, we will be consulting on the detail of the proposed regime. We will certainly reflect on the concerns that have been raised in this House and will take them into account in developing the fee options. It is also worth the House recalling that fee regulations made under this section would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. We have built in a series of important safeguards to get it right, to protect people from carelessness and to give them options—sometimes better options. These safeguards will also ensure that we have a robust arrangement by way of consultation and parliamentary activity.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Does that mean that if a planning inspector finds that a local authority has behaved unreasonably in the circumstances I described a few minutes ago, simply declining to make a decision and so running out of time, the inspector will then have the power to order the local authority to bear the whole cost? Is that right?

Baroness Andrews: Yes; I shall repeat the point. In those circumstances, if there is evidence that a local planning authority has acted unreasonably in a non-determination case, the applicant could seek an award of costs as part of the appeal proceedings. As I say, I think the Planning Inspectorate will be on the qui vive for that, to maintain its own high standards.
	We are bringing forward government Amendment No. 434 in response to concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the scope of the power in new Section 303ZA in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to amend, repeal or revoke other legislation. As currently drafted, there is the power for regulations made under new Section 303ZA to amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under the TCPA or by or under any other Act. This amendment limits that power so that regulations can amend, repeal or revoke provisions under the TCPA or any other Act only in order to make provisions to the effect of paying, or failing to pay, an appeal fee or incidental supplementary consequential transitional or transitory provisions and savings. Amendment No. 434 therefore reflects the committee's suggestion to restrict the scope of the power.
	I turn to government Amendment No. 435. Clause 196 contains a power for the Welsh Ministers to make provision by order to apply England-only provisions in Wales. The Welsh Ministers are aware of the Government's decision to drop local member review bodies in England and do not wish to proceed with the proposal in Wales. Amendment No. 435 therefore removes the local member review body provisions from the list of those that could be applied to Wales by order.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: Nobody has actually said, in the course of the debate, how grateful we are to the noble Baroness for having withdrawn the whole clause. It was clearly running into considerable difficulties and she has had the wisdom to take it back.

[Amendment No. 413A not moved.]
	Clause 177 negatived.
	Clause 178 [Determination of applications for certificates of lawful use or development by officers]:
	[Amendment No. 413B not moved.]
	Clause 178 negatived.
	Clause 179 negatived.
	Clause 180 [Determination of listed building applications by officers]:
	[Amendment No. 414 not moved.]
	Clause 180 negatived.
	Clause 181 agreed to.
	Schedule 7 agreed to.
	Clause 182 agreed to.
	Clause 183 [Removal of right to compensation where notice given of withdrawal of planning permission]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 415 and 416:
	Clause 183, page 106, line 42, leave out "In"
	Clause 183, page 107, line 2, after "order)" insert "is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) Where—
	(a) planning permission granted by a development order for development in England of a prescribed description is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order, or(b) planning permission granted by a local development order for development in England is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order,this section applies only if the application referred to in subsection (1)(b) is made before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the directions took effect."
	(3) "
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 417:
	Clause 183, page 107, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—
	"(a) in the case of planning permission granted by a development order, the condition in subsection (3C) is met;(b) in the case of planning permission granted by a local development order, the condition in subsection (3D) is met.
	(3C) The condition referred to in subsection (3B)(a) is that—
	(a) the planning permission is granted for development in England of a prescribed description,(b) the planning permission is withdrawn in the prescribed manner,(c) notice of the withdrawal was published in the prescribed manner not less than 12 months or more than the prescribed period before the withdrawal took effect, and(d) either—(i) the development authorised by the development order had not started before the notice was published, or(ii) the development order includes provision in pursuance of section 61D permitting the development to be completed after the permission is withdrawn.
	(3D) The condition referred to in subsection (3B)(b) is that—
	(a) the planning permission is granted for development in England,(b) the planning permission is withdrawn by the revocation or amendment of the local development order, or by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the local development order,(c) notice of the revocation, amendment or directions was published in the prescribed manner not less than 12 months or more than the prescribed period before the revocation, amendment or directions (as the case may be) took effect, and(d) either—(i) the development authorised by the local development order had not started before the notice was published, or(ii) the local development order includes provision in pursuance of section 61D permitting the development to be completed after the permission is withdrawn.""
	[Amendment No. 417A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 417, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 417 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 418 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 419:
	Clause 183, page 107, line 19, at end insert—
	"(4) After subsection (4) insert—
	"(5) Regulations under this section prescribing a description of development may (in particular) do so by reference to one or more classes or descriptions of development specified in a development order.
	(6) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 183, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 184 [Power to make non-material changes to planning permission]:
	[Amendment No. 420 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 421 to 428 not moved.]
	Clause 184 agreed to.
	Clause 185 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 428A had been retabled as Amendment No. 429A.]
	[Amendments Nos. 429 to 429A not moved.]
	Clause 186 [Tree preservation orders]:
	[Amendment No. 430 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 431:
	Clause 186, page 112, line 13, leave out "contained in the planning Acts" and insert "of this Act mentioned in subsection (1A).
	(1A) The provisions are any provision of Part 3 relating to planning permission or applications for planning permission, except sections 56, 62, 65, 69(3) and (4), 71, 91 to 96, 100 and 101 and Schedule 8."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 186, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 8 [Tree preservation orders: further amendments]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 432:
	Schedule 8, page 173, line 8, leave out paragraph 16
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 187 and 188 agreed to.
	Schedule 9 [Use of land: power to override easements and other rights]:
	[Amendment No. 432A not moved.]
	Schedule 9 agreed to.
	Clause 189 agreed to.
	Clause 190 [Determination of procedure for certain proceedings]:
	[Amendment No. 432B not moved.]
	Clause 190 agreed to.
	Schedule 10 agreed to.
	Clause 191 agreed to.
	Schedule 11 agreed to.
	Clause 192 agreed to.
	Clause 193 [Fees for planning applications]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 433:
	Clause 193, page 118, line 35, at beginning insert "in the case of regulations made by virtue of subsection (5)(f) or paragraph (a) of this subsection,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 193, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 194 [Fees for appeals]:
	[Amendment No. 433A not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 434:
	Clause 194, page 119, line 34, at beginning insert "in the case of regulations made by virtue of subsection (2)(e) or paragraph (a) of this subsection,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 194, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 195 [Powers of National Assembly for Wales]:

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 434A:
	Clause 195, page 120, leave out lines 18 to 33

Earl Cathcart: Amendments Nos. 434A and 434B have been tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Glentoran because they relate to the transfer of powers to the Welsh Assembly. That might sound strange, because my noble friend comes from and lives in Northern Ireland, but he is the opposition spokesman not only for Northern Ireland but also for Wales. So, with my Scottish background, I shall move these amendments on Wales on his behalf.
	Before I discuss the substance of the amendments, I register a protest that it was necessary to debate them at all. Clause 195 transfers primary legislative competence from this place to a subordinate legislature, the Assembly in Cardiff, yet the clause was not debated on the Floor of the other place. Due to the Government's programme, any debate on this topic was restricted to a small Committee of Members. It should not be acceptable for Parliament to give away its powers without a full and proper debate in both Houses, not least the elected Chamber.
	On 12 December 2007, in Committee, Paul Murphy, a former government Secretary of State for Wales, said:
	"I do not believe for one second that we should be rubber-stamping ... legislation for devolution, because we would not be doing our job as Members of this Parliament. We must scrutinise such matters properly for the purpose of correctness, certainly, but also to establish whether we think that there is a case to be made for the particular powers, whatever they might be, to be devolved to the National Assembly".—[Official Report, Commons, Welsh Grand Committee, 12/12/07; col. 27.]
	If that was true then, it remains so now. We should not be in the business of handing away powers from this place for the sake of it. A strong case must be made for doing so. Why has the Assembly asked for these powers? What case has it made for needing them?
	My amendments would remove those parts of the clause which refer to proposed matters 18.2 and 18.3 under Part 6 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Part 6 requires Welsh Ministers to produce a national spatial plan for Wales, to which local authorities must have regard when preparing their local development plans. That spatial plan sets out the policies that Welsh Ministers think appropriate in relation to the development and use of land in Wales.
	Proposed matter 18.2 will give the Assembly legislative competence,
	"in connection with the review by local planning authorities of matters which may be expected to affect ... the development of the authorities' areas, or ... the planning of the development",
	of such areas.
	Proposed matter 18.3 will give the Assembly competence to make provision in connection with local development plans and the removal of,
	"requirements of any such plans".
	However, the fact that Welsh Ministers have made an application for primary legislative competence does not automatically mean that such competence should be granted. I see no compelling case for the devolution of primary competence in respect of matters 18.2 and 18.3. As my colleague David Jones said in another place in February:
	"The Welsh Assembly Government have shown themselves over the years to be both acquisitive in terms of power and highly centralising. I am concerned that the powers that they seek under the clause will enable them to operate in an even more highly interventionist manner as far as local planning authorities are concerned. I do not believe that it is a function of this Parliament simply to hand over primary powers to the Welsh Assembly unless a strong and compelling case has been made".—[Official Report, Commons, Planning Bill Committee, 5/2/2008; col. 668.]
	Will the Minister address both the substance of my amendments and my concerns about the lack of debate and scrutiny they have so far received?
	As a post script, when I was reading this clause, I noted with interest that it says that,
	"'local planning authority' in relation to an area means ... a National Park authority".
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would be very pleased with that, although he is not in his place. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: While I agree with the noble Earl that this should be debated, surely the principle involved—that we now have an elected Assembly in Wales—means that the Assembly must have the power exercised in this clause. Indeed, I cannot see a case for removing either matter 18.2 or 18.3 from the Bill. It is very important that the Assembly has this power as the primary legislative body in Wales. Contrary to what the noble Earl says, there is good communication between the Assembly and local authorities and between the Assembly and national parks. There is a big case in the area where I live, in my former constituency of Brecon and Radnor, about a planning application, which clearly should not have been passed by the local authority. The Assembly has rightly intervened, much to the agreement of the communities affected, because enforcement was inadequate in that case.
	I agree that this needs debate, but surely the principle of devolving power to the Assembly for planning matters in this way must be right, in that we in Wales elect Members of the Welsh Assembly and give them responsibilities. This surely should be one of them.

Baroness Andrews: I am very grateful that we have had an opportunity to debate Wales in this Chamber—and grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. I cannot comment on how the other place organises its time, but we can make up for it this evening in the quality and forensic nature of our debate on why we need this very important clause. I shall not rehearse the whole argument for devolution—I will if noble Lords insist, but time is getting on—as I think that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has already done so very well.
	I would like to pick up on a phrase that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, used. He said that this is not a question of acquiring power for the sake of it but that Wales needs this for a strong and compelling reason, which is to make sure that the whole of its planning system is functional. I think that was the burden of what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, said.
	Amendments Nos. 434A and 434B were debated at some length in Committee in the other place. They would mean that the National Assembly for Wales could only legislate on plans about the development and use of land in Wales which had been prepared by Welsh Ministers and not those by local planning authorities. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, raised concerns that the case had not been made to transfer powers from this place to the National Assembly for Wales in relation to plans prepared by Welsh local authorities.
	I think that the phrase used in the other place was that Welsh Ministers were somehow seeking to centralise and hoover up power and thus reduce the discretion of Welsh local planning authorities. The whole point of this is that the Welsh Assembly Government are committed to a plan-led system. Its distinctive development plan system is still in its infancy, with local development plans as introduced in the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004 forming the cornerstone of the land-use system in Wales.
	For that system to work effectively, national level plans, such as the Wales spatial plan and local development plan, need to work coherently with each other, just as they do in England. While local planning authorities must have regard to the Wales spatial plan when preparing their local development plan, the National Assembly for Wales is currently unable to make changes that it feels would best serve the distinctive planning system now being established in Wales. That is of course what the Bill seeks to do.
	The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, proposes that the National Assembly for Wales would have framework powers in relation to plans made by Welsh Ministers but not for this other vital part of the land-use plan system—local development plans. Allowing the Assembly to operate in relation to Welsh Ministers but not local planning authorities is a recipe for fragmentation and dysfunction.
	These amendments would develop an incoherent and inconsistent approach between the two tiers of plan-making in Wales. Plans made by Welsh Ministers that could be applied at national levels would not flow down to the local level. The priorities would not be reflected through the Welsh planning system. This Chamber would not want that. We are very aware of the importance of a coherent and integrated plan-making system. Certainly, it would not be acceptable for the National Assembly for Wales.
	Clause 195 has a compelling purpose. It gives the Assembly the tools necessary to manage and oversee the planning system in Wales, which is, quite rightly, a devolved matter. It would enable the Assembly to prescribe what a local development plan must set out, the matters to which local planning authorities must have regard when preparing local development plans, the preparation requirements, including consultation, the independent examination of the plan, and powers for the Welsh Minister to intervene if a plan is considered unsatisfactory. Those are very important plans at this formative stage of land-use planning at a local level in Wales.
	The powers will allow the Assembly to continue, update and adapt the land-use plan system in Wales; that includes the local develop plan and its relationship with the Wales spatial plan.
	The Welsh Local Government Association supports these framework powers. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, will feel that there are indeed compelling reasons why the clause is in the Bill and he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Cathcart: I thank the Minister for her response. The safest thing for me to do at this stage is to report back to my noble friend Lord Glentoran. No doubt we will need to read the Minister's response and reflect on the issues. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 434B not moved.]
	Clause 195 agreed to.
	Clause 196 [Power to make provision in relation to Wales]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 435:
	Clause 196, page 121, leave out lines 8 to 12
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 196, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 197 agreed to.

Baroness Thornton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Planning and Energy Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.
	House adjourned at 9.40 pm.